Topic: Fair Profit for Coin Founders (Read 4518 times)

Lol, developers don't do sneak launches because they are worried about a 51% attack.  And they don't use Scrypt to stop the democratic process?  WTH.  It's scary when a "Developer" doesn't even have the basics down.

Anyways to explain the 51% attack to the other guy who asked, in newbie speak, since I am a newbie as well, and not someone that could actually pull off an attack.  With a PoW (Proof of Work) currency, Your network is running on a democratic system, where if someone tries to attack the coin (By changing the Blockchain allowing them to double spend coins ect), the network looks at the 2 different Blockchains, and awards the chain with the majority of the Work being completed on it as the correct one, and all the other computers in the network will then adopt that Blockchain as the real one.

SHA256d, Scrypt, SHA3, Finding prime numbers.  All that doesn't really matter to the "Security" of the Blockchain.  The Blockchain isn't actually super-encrypted, it is open for everyone to view it at will.  What all the computers on the network (mining) for your coin are doing is proving they are completing work, as a way to give themselves a small % of the total amount of voting shares for which chain is the correct one.

When a network has a small amount of miners, (you can see many with around 1 Mhash/s), all it would take is for 1 person with 1.1 MHash/s to start mining, and by all rights, they can start selling their coins (get the money), put them back in their wallet, spend them again, and again and again.  Once this happens, the coin is pretty much worthless, and it falls to obscurity.  With a larger coin with say 200 MHash/s on the network.  They would need the processing power to put another 204 MHash/s on the network to attack it.  But what they will usually do is look for weaknesses like a certain pool has 50% of the hashing power, or 2-3 large pools, and DDOS attack the pools effectively shutting them down for a period of time.  During that time the network may be floating around the 40-50 MHash/s rate, thus it would be possible for them to attack the coin if they had the hashing power.

This is where some people believe Scrypt networks are more secure, as the price of creating a GPU farm with 50 MHash/s is more expensive than buying a few ASIC miners and having alot of power to throw around.  As more ASIC's are being shipped out to people all over the network, this problem will dissipate.  Not saying anyone could easily afford to take down Bitcoin.  But if you had your new coin launched, on SHA256 and the network was being mined at even 100 G Hash/s, it really wouldn't take much at all to find someone that has the power to knock your coin out.

What a PoS / PoW currency does (Like PPCoin, NovaCoin, Bottlecaps) does is not only does it look to see if the attacker has 51% of all the work being completed on the network.  It also checks to see if the attacker owns 51% of all the coin days on the network.  This vastly makes it more expensive to attack, and would be financial suicide, as they would never be able to sell off all the coins they owned in the currency during the attack.  So they would effectively lose money attacking it.  With a strict PoW system, if they destroy it, they still have all their original equipment, and can go destroy the next coin they feel like, or go back to mining their favorites again.

The greatest thing about a PoS currency, is after the PoW is at the end of it's lifecycle, the network can be switched over to a total PoS security.  The amount of electricity being consumed to keep the network secure drops to almost nothing, as all it is looking for is 51% ownership of all the coindays on the network to provide the security

Ouch. Is basically all I have to say to that deac. It's one of the reasons why I won't touch a coin that has pre-mine. The only reason I installed Bitcoin and Litecoin is because they're pretty much established. I also agree that people should at least put a little effort into their work even it is just changing the names. That's the least amount of work they could do.

That said it's really hard to find a really alternative currency. I'm certainly happy to look into genuine alternative currencies. At the moment, this looks like the idea behind it will be significantly different from most others which is why I'm still here. Unlike primecoin...which is going to fail because it's just PPCoin and I don't like the look of that either.

Are you sure? Several million feathercoins and chinacoins were mined within first 24 hours. Developers made several hundred thousand coins for sure. Those were traded somewhere 0,005 at their peak, so easy 100k for devs, who did nothing but copy litecoins code. After those we had shitload of different pump and dumps, all based on existing code.

In some cases developers didn't even change coins name in the client and we saw something like "shitcoin" [SHC], but when you downloaded a client it said 0.00 LTC. That's how much developers put effort in these coins.

And usually when there is premine/instamine, it's insane like 560k out of 21M. That's something like 220 Billion in us dollars (2,6% of M2 money supply).

Bingo!

That's why I'm not afraid of failing and I invite a 51% attack.  Given it doesn't cost that much to launch a coin a fair launch should be fair for the community not the developers. 

And what better way to know a coin is wanted and will potentially succeed than to invite hackers and miners to kill it?  If it has merit then you'll quickly find out.

If it's another CrapCoin then it should be killed.

And the fear of an attack should make a coin better but instead devs do sneak launches and scrypt coins so they get rid of the democratic process.

A computer guy can explain a 51% attack better.  But, If you want fundamental analysis of a real asset I can help.  lol

Would someone like to explain this 51% attack to me? I feel like I'm missing something rather important.

That said, on the face of it, nothing looks more democratic. Though with enough determination and will power behind something then it will succeed even in the face of public opinion. It just takes time. There are a lot of people against bitcoins, litecoins and other such currencies, yet it hasn't stopped them from excelling.

No.  The majority of the miners have small rigs and they just can't catch a break.  The people's will is usually the best way to go but if you're a dev your main concern isn't the miners but rather how can you keep your coin from getting killed and then you actually take steps which go against the power of the miners since it is the miners that can kill your coin.

I'm doing the opposite - I'm runnin' and gunnin' straight for the miners and if they love this coin then they'll adopt it and it will thrive and if it sucks then I'm giving enough heads up time and making it SHAW256 where they can easily kill it.

What's more democratic than that?

Power in the hands of the people?

...great. That's me dead then

my question was about execution, not ideas - the multipliers.

You can be a great multiplier, but hey, 9999999999(multiplier) * 0(execution) = 0

Fresh ideas.

New perspective cause I an
a newbie and an Econimist and not a programmer.

Total honesty with self imposed checks and balances.

And I can pay. I didn't think I could yesterday cause I thought it was $10,000 to just launch a coin.  Now that I know the cost is way less this is almost comical.

Hence, I'm the only guy offering at least a 3 day heads up and ASIC merge mining so people can mobilize and kill any coin I put out of its trash.  This is what a real fair launch is - let the community and mining market decide what's trash and what should die, no more sneak launches.


Who has been that honest? Who has put that power in the hands of the people?

@Vlad, to be honest, you sound like a total newbie to this crypto game to me, even though I have only been in the game roughly the same amount of time as you.

I don't think you should ever try to launch a coin anyway, it will be DOA, 99% guaranteed

Why? Because you have nothing to add value to the project.
- you can't code
- you can't promote
- you can't design (I assume)
- you can't pay

=> So what have you got to offer?

Just click the link, bro, the article has 500+ words explaining it:
http://ecoinomist.com/weather-proof-gpu-litecoin-mining-rig-pictures

Nope, I'm just a web designer, frontend developer (HTML/CSS) and online marketer
I get wholesale prices from the biggest computer part supplier in the country.


FTC dev could have possibly achieved just that.

It wouldn't make any difference because the reward is in the relative nature if the overall results a miner gets and not anything to do with their equipment or network.  It's a reward feature and the less you earn mining the more rewarded you'll feel by this feature.

I don't wanna give it away cause I think it's a great idea but trust me, it would be fair to big miners and a bit more than fair to the small miners but the big miners would get the same exact rewards as the small miners.  A win-win for everyone.

Then large miners will simply appear on the network as multiple "small" miners are you are back where you started.

I'm only saying I'd like to give the small miners a bit of an edge and make mining more exciting.

I'm sorry...could you explain this to a newb such as myself? How do the miners provide security?

The coin I have in mind would help guys just like you.  I can't target just low hash-rate computers but I think my idea would at least give solo miners and the little guy a fighting chance.  An edge.  Not a huge advantage but an edge you currently don't have with any coin out there.  And it would also make mining more fun.

1% of mined coins.  You don't have to personally pitch in anything.

Maybe you aren't getting (like take a step back and look at the big picture) on the purpose of a crypto-currency.  The purpose of a currency is to facilitate trade without the need for the a trusted third party.

Mining is how the network achieves consensus and yes miners are "paid" for the service they provide.  Since the network is a real cost and a new currency needs some for of initial distribution it makes sense to kill two birds with one stone.  The protocol gives miners a subsidy (in the form of new coins) and that also achieves the initial controlled distribution.

However the point of mining is to secure the network. That is what miners are being paid for.  Without security it doesn't matter how many trillions of coins you have they are worthless.   

If you're interested in putting together a coin that means everyone can have a share of the pie including the small miners, count me in. My problem with most of the current ones is that I simply just can't take part. My computer isn't powerful enough for the majority of these currencies and bitcoin is just impossible.

1% of what by the way? If I'm able to mine, I'd have no problem contributing some of what I've mined to the pot, that's not exactly an unreasonable request from my perspective.

Lets just bear in mind that my computer is a what...i4 equivalent processor *cough*ireallyneedtoupdatemymotherboard*cough* but I'd be happy ^_^;

I'm totally against premine or instamine.  I said the only fair way is to pay a % of mined coins.  I said 25% cause I thought it was really expensive to launch a coin, over $10,000 but its not nearly that high.

And nobody has ever made $100,000 weeks after a launch.  It's not possible.  Maybe months and only in rare cases.

But I agree, premining is a clear pump and dump scheme.

I'm gonna do a poll to see how many people want a mining coin:  a coin for the miners, skewed to benefit the smaller miners the most, on a % basis.

1/40 of the total money you know on 99.9% country (yes not Vatican  ) with that share of fiat you would be the richest of the country. if that was bitcoin it would be 35M$ value. most coin are copy paste 60-90% of scrypt coin had to realease a patch since they not even know enough to change the alert signature of litecoin so thay get alerts for litecoin client update in their coin client, so they do replace litecoin by XXcoin and change seeds 2-3 parameter then go.

25% are you kidding  especially premine is at start so only devs have coin on starting hype in trades.

But let be realistic, the current trend is i setup a coins in 2 weeks work(1 person) get 100K$ back in next 2 weeks by premine-instamine. wow that is a hell of high pay. that is one of the major point that is making lots of bad rep to alt coin at the moment. the current formulas they use is just give me your money especially when you see some dev are not even very active after launch.


yes dev should possibly get some rewards,  Add some value to the coins as service, exchange, excrow, market and then collect from those. can even be google ads on the sites.

emuni, primecoin and some other innovate and should get rewards, copy paste need to add something to get reward.