Topic: Core - Building crypto that rewards all network activities (Read 765 times)

@Netnox


In the end, the protocol can´t be controlled if it´s open source (and that´s the good part about it), but people will look out to create a community and for people who lead discussions, so, yes, I believe having a visible steering group makes sense, particularly as long as crypto needs to be considered as start-up. However, I don´t believe it´s only about visibility (and competence) it´s also about the ability of people to participate in the process. This is why I think MC2 aim to use an inflation rate that can be manipulated by the holders of the currency makes sense and gives the community a better control of the currency.

@BitcoiNaked


That´s it and that´s exactly what happens to most Altcoins because they have a 0-structured community. In most communities hopes rely on the activity of the developers and once they withdraw people get nervous because they don´t know what to do. Actually that is what we saw with Quark (and I think partwise with Peercoin): the absence of the developer in public discussion made vast amounts of members losing their trust in the currency.  If you have a structure where it is clear that people are only in charge because the community backed them and that they can and will be replaced by others, communities won´t rely that much on single person as they do now - which in fact makes it more "decentralized" than it is normally if you want to look at it this way - there are always some that won´t understand that, though

^^ I don't agree entirely, Crypto wasn't designed not having a core community, but to be a decentralised currency with the meaning of not relying on a bank. I believe trustable core members can give the rest more confidence and structure. Without it projects, tasks etc can become a clusterfuck.

"~ as soon as the rates are dropping many communities easily fall apart.

All this scares away those people who are potentially interested in a anonymous/pseudonymous currency that is independent from central banking systems. We need to remember that there are (and have been) active communities who are supporting regional currencies and are mostly troubled by creating a working payment infrastructure. Crypto could be a big help but won´t be touched by those people unless there are solutions that apply with the community character that these networks are based upon. In the end the community and not the marketcap is the backbone of every currency."

--------------------------------------

Whole premise is flawed -

pre-supposes that a Crypto currency needs a "core community" - when its so obviously does not and that's what it was designed for.

the evidence is all around you, Bitcoin has a "Bitcoin foundation" which has done exactly nothing for its price. (actually dropped it)

the list goes on....

all a Crypto currency needs is the code to be good enough to allow for the basics of "neutral control" and general security.

everything else is each investors working with other like minded people towards different decentralized achievements.

excuse me for asking but are you from a European nation?  i've found that principals of "liberal freedom" seem to be sometimes misunderstood by some Europeans?  (no offense, and its not all, just some. )

Interesting Draft and i'll keep on eye on it.

Do you agree on coins which have devs who are visibly present like giving video interviews in a professional manner, give presentations and basically show and present themselves have a higher chance to succeed? Coindevs like Bitcoin/Litecoin/Ethereum have all devs who people regularly see. This for me as an investor can give more trust. All in all from what i've seen from you, you would make a good dev.

I became involved with Crypto first time in 2010 when I read an article on Bitcoin. I really liked the idea of cash on the net and the possibility to exchange funds without a bank to be involved. Then in early 2013 I was caught up by the hype around Bitcoin. I bought some at 60 USD and saw them rise and fall. Since then I became involved in crypto communities, mostly in Quark (as you can see by my nick). Being a designer I helped with both community building and creating artwork.

However, I experienced that most cryptocommunities lack of ressources that allow to proceed in development and promotion. They also lack of group integration as day traders, P&D groups and people who are eagerly looking forward for the next peak (to sell off) are in general pretty dominant. The fact that basically all cryptocurrencies lack of a fair distribution (supposedly, because real distribution can only be assumed) allow for take-away effects and massive dumps that have the potential to erode the necessary optimism within the community to move things forward. This leaves many crypto"communities" as mere partners of convenience: as soon as the rates are dropping many communities easily fall apart.

All this scares away those people who are potentially interested in a anonymous/pseudonymous currency that is independent from central banking systems. We need to remember that there are (and have been) active communities who are supporting regional currencies and are mostly troubled by creating a working payment infrastructure. Crypto could be a big help but won´t be touched by those people unless there are solutions that apply with the community character that these networks are based upon. In the end the community and not the marketcap is the backbone of every currency.

I believe that "start-up" currencies heavily rely on the ability of a core team to work together and move things forward. This is why the proposal does not contain a lot of technical specifications for a new currency, but proposals how to get a community running. I invite everyone who is interested in building this kind of community/currency to join #coreproject on freenode, contact me or simply discuss on this thread.

This is the link to the short version of the document:

http://bit.ly/core-01

P.S.: I am not a native so please excuse all spelling mistakes in the document