Topic: FairCryptocurrency Committee - FairLaunch Approval - Please Read (Read 3906 times)
Let the market sort it out. Be patient. Decentralized systems are selforganizing ,but messy, regulators, rule-makers, and organizers are old school. That's what I want to get away from. If you need that just stick to the dollar.
January 06, 2014, 04:35:11 AM
ehhh, I suggested the stamp of approval idea a few days ago in another thread =P
great to see something is done to stop all these copy/scam coins ruining the economy!
great to see something is done to stop all these copy/scam coins ruining the economy!
The more I think about this idea the more I like it but I still don't think it will do much on its own to slow down the rate of scam creation. Even if all it does is send a message to outsiders looking in that there are people trying to keep things clean and above board I think it can be helpful to alt community legitimacy in the long run. Image matters.
Also I don't think this is all that conflicting with the crypto-anarchist position since it's a purely voluntary thing. I just hope it doesn't turn into the American Heart Association where any food processor can get a heart healthy label on its junk food in exchange for a healthy donation. I also hope it doesn't end up overly rigid or ideological. That would be the quickest path to irrelevance.
January 06, 2014, 12:44:08 AM
ehhh, I suggested the stamp of approval idea a few days ago in another thread =P
great to see something is done to stop all these copy/scam coins ruining the economy!
great to see something is done to stop all these copy/scam coins ruining the economy!
January 06, 2014, 12:32:49 AM
I am strongly sympathetic to the hardcore cryptocurrency anarchists who are involved in the decentralization of the world's currency systems. This makes me hesitant to support an approval system such as the one outlined.
On the other hand, the proliferation of worthless coins is definitely a problem, and one that should be addressed. I feel that in order for alt coins to be successful as a long-term challenge to the fiat currencies, they must gain wide mainstream acceptance. The crapcoins released almost daily seem to me to be counterproductive in this regard, and are making all alternative currencies look more risky and more scam-like to the general population of consumers and investors, simply because most people (outside this community) don't understand the difference between BTC and DGC, and [insert today's CRAP coin name here]. Getting new coins to a state of "safety" and/or "fairness" would help expand the community of coin users and enhance the legitimacy of not necessarily any one group of coins, but to the concept of alternative currencies generally.
A Fair Crypto Foundation may be a step in this direction if it leads to more stable coins with long-term growth potential, without enforcement powers against new coins and without limiting new currencies to a set template of what an "approved" coin should look like. Crap coins will still be released, and perhaps some good coins may come about without official approval, but this system may bring in some valuable investment that the community needs to flourish. And in the end, the free market will still decide which currencies fail and which survive.
On the other hand, the proliferation of worthless coins is definitely a problem, and one that should be addressed. I feel that in order for alt coins to be successful as a long-term challenge to the fiat currencies, they must gain wide mainstream acceptance. The crapcoins released almost daily seem to me to be counterproductive in this regard, and are making all alternative currencies look more risky and more scam-like to the general population of consumers and investors, simply because most people (outside this community) don't understand the difference between BTC and DGC, and [insert today's CRAP coin name here]. Getting new coins to a state of "safety" and/or "fairness" would help expand the community of coin users and enhance the legitimacy of not necessarily any one group of coins, but to the concept of alternative currencies generally.
A Fair Crypto Foundation may be a step in this direction if it leads to more stable coins with long-term growth potential, without enforcement powers against new coins and without limiting new currencies to a set template of what an "approved" coin should look like. Crap coins will still be released, and perhaps some good coins may come about without official approval, but this system may bring in some valuable investment that the community needs to flourish. And in the end, the free market will still decide which currencies fail and which survive.
January 05, 2014, 09:53:53 PM
That said, I do like the idea of a colbertcoin for publicity purposes IF the developer can get a Colbert endorsement
Exactly right.
In efforts to set a good example, we are not simply grabbing the Colbert name and slapping it on a coin. We have reached out to the producers and will bring them in on this.
If they say no, then its off.
If they want to proceed with this experiment, then its full steam ahead.
I will need the assistance of good devs, so if any of you have some experience or have contacts, send them through.
January 05, 2014, 03:38:38 PM
Excellent proposal. We can also develop a grading system based on certain criteria available before, during and after launch. A score out of 100 based on things like source code availability, compiled clients, supported exchanges, forking history, testnet etc etc.
That way people can have a better place to compare and make wiser decisions on what coins to support. We can also include "FairLaunch" as an option for any new coins. If devs would like, for a small donation we can have committee members review their coins before, during and after launch and if a fair launch is accomplished, they get an approval rating. This way anyone late to the coin knows that coin isn't just a pump and dump scam.
This would also include coins with innovative designs like 100% Premined PoS coins that are meant for fair distribution and purchase, closed source coins, or coins with new and unique algorithms that have yet to be developed.
That way people can have a better place to compare and make wiser decisions on what coins to support. We can also include "FairLaunch" as an option for any new coins. If devs would like, for a small donation we can have committee members review their coins before, during and after launch and if a fair launch is accomplished, they get an approval rating. This way anyone late to the coin knows that coin isn't just a pump and dump scam.
This would also include coins with innovative designs like 100% Premined PoS coins that are meant for fair distribution and purchase, closed source coins, or coins with new and unique algorithms that have yet to be developed.
I would like to recommend the foundation consider a wiki system, in order to quickly produce an immediately useful resource.
Lock down editing of the home page, and use that to present the matrix information.
Link from the home page to sub-pages for individual coins and global concepts (PoW, PoS, PoB, etc...). Create a required template of information for all individual coins (covering the criteria you with to present on the main page).
Neutral point of view should be the content policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
Moderation overhead will be heavy, but directly proportionate the challenge of the Foundation itself. Elected foundation members can serve as content moderators. I would donate to see this get off the ground.
January 05, 2014, 03:29:43 PM
here is a shortlist of coins with/without testnets.
altcoin testnets? Wasteland of failed assertions
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/altcoin-testnets-wasteland-of-failed-assertions-271176
Chances are that any coins released within the last 1 month, including those from the altcoin creation service, will not have testnets. Its a big problem because it means that the dev didn't test the code and may lack the skills to fix the coin if it ever becomes broken. Most scamcoin devs only want the coin to work long enough for it to get listed on a exchange so that they can dump. If that is the true intention of the dev, most likely they will not bother with testnet.
altcoin testnets? Wasteland of failed assertions
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/altcoin-testnets-wasteland-of-failed-assertions-271176
Chances are that any coins released within the last 1 month, including those from the altcoin creation service, will not have testnets. Its a big problem because it means that the dev didn't test the code and may lack the skills to fix the coin if it ever becomes broken. Most scamcoin devs only want the coin to work long enough for it to get listed on a exchange so that they can dump. If that is the true intention of the dev, most likely they will not bother with testnet.
Not necessarily. For example with the Darsek relaunch I had a few public test nets and even more private test nets. Just because a public test net is not available, does not mean the developer did not use private test nets. In many ways it makes more sense because with a public test net , every time there is a change something that effects the block chain you need to reset the test net. With a public test net, that means getting everybody helping with the test net on board every time a major change occurs. This can slow things down. Once a coin is released, a test net is really just a couple of public nodes set with the test net switch on, not really a big feat or any sign of developer competence.
I rarely find myself using a public test net, as setting up a private test net is much more efficient in terms of testing code as a public test net requires others to also be testing your code.
Public test nets do have there place in development, but not to the extent being suggested.
Just my experience
January 05, 2014, 03:25:11 PM
I think coins that are relying on a substantially unique code base should be treated somewhat differently than coins which are just copy/paste clones. Otherwise this organization would do more to stiffle innovation than help it. As far as the copy/paste scrypt and sha clones go though there really should be a compelling reason for creating another coin at all, in addition to the other requirements listed. The whole point of currency is to be at least a somewhat universal unit for trade.
I agree. I love the intent... but this does not discourage crap coins---and may stifle innovation, as you have said. It seems that this is (inadvertantly) more about concerns for the long term mining integrity of Bitcoin directive descendants than about supporting innovation.
Mining, as we know it today, may not be the future.
As a counter-proposal I would like to suggest: create an alt-coin matrix.
Use the momentum behind this idea to create a site that details specific objective criteria, such as source code availability/location, main site, lead developers, launch date, whether or not the coin is mined, initial coin count, expected coin count, re-launch history, fork history, supported exchanges, etc...
WikiMatrix does something like this for wiki engines: http://www.wikimatrix.org/
I would love to see that for alts.
Excellent proposal. We can also develop a grading system based on certain criteria available before, during and after launch. A score out of 100 based on things like source code availability, compiled clients, supported exchanges, forking history, testnet etc etc.
That way people can have a better place to compare and make wiser decisions on what coins to support. We can also include "FairLaunch" as an option for any new coins. If devs would like, for a small donation we can have committee members review their coins before, during and after launch and if a fair launch is accomplished, they get an approval rating. This way anyone late to the coin knows that coin isn't just a pump and dump scam.
This would also include coins with innovative designs like 100% Premined PoS coins that are meant for fair distribution and purchase, closed source coins, or coins with new and unique algorithms that have yet to be developed.
January 05, 2014, 03:19:56 PM
While I support free market, I do have to agree that it is getting out of hand.
Maybe instead there should just be higher standards on these forums. The forums have been around a long time are considered to be the staple-point of the bitcoin community. I think that in order to have your "new" coin posted here, it should meet certain guidelines and then and only then can it be posted here.
These forums are spinning out of control, and frankly it is looking even worse with all these "reserved" posts. Now whether they are there to sell to someone at a later point, or whether it is to help peoples post count, I don't know but they need to be cleaned up.
Just my 2 cents.
Maybe instead there should just be higher standards on these forums. The forums have been around a long time are considered to be the staple-point of the bitcoin community. I think that in order to have your "new" coin posted here, it should meet certain guidelines and then and only then can it be posted here.
These forums are spinning out of control, and frankly it is looking even worse with all these "reserved" posts. Now whether they are there to sell to someone at a later point, or whether it is to help peoples post count, I don't know but they need to be cleaned up.
Just my 2 cents.
January 05, 2014, 03:10:56 PM
I think coins that are relying on a substantially unique code base should be treated somewhat differently than coins which are just copy/paste clones. Otherwise this organization would do more to stiffle innovation than help it. As far as the copy/paste scrypt and sha clones go though there really should be a compelling reason for creating another coin at all, in addition to the other requirements listed. The whole point of currency is to be at least a somewhat universal unit for trade.
I agree. I love the intent... but this does not discourage crap coins---and may stifle innovation, as you have said. It seems that this is (inadvertantly) more about concerns for the long term mining integrity of Bitcoin directive descendants than about supporting innovation.
Mining, as we know it today, may not be the future.
As a counter-proposal I would like to suggest: create an alt-coin matrix.
Use the momentum behind this idea to create a site that details specific objective criteria, such as source code availability/location, main site, lead developers, launch date, whether or not the coin is mined, initial coin count, expected coin count, re-launch history, fork history, supported exchanges, etc...
WikiMatrix does something like this for wiki engines: http://www.wikimatrix.org/
I would love to see that for alts.
January 05, 2014, 03:10:13 PM
I have been struggling with how I should eventually decide which coins will make it on CCE. The CCE3 project is an ongoing effort to create an explorer that takes up less resources and giving CCE the ability to host more coins.
At first the goal was to be able to handle the vast majority of coins, but the more I think about it, that my not be possible from a human resource standpoint. If CCE has 150+ coins, without developer interaction, there would be no reasonable way for me to keep up with client updates/forks etc. Lets just say developer interaction with just the coins now hosted on CCE has been less then needed.
I have been trying to think of a criteria for adding coins to CCE. I used to get requests to add coins before the Spring rush because CCE gave coins some measure of legitimacy, perhaps it is time to go back to that before CCE3 is finished.
Perhaps a committee like this could play a part in which coins get onto CCE. Maybe a requirement to notify all services directly of mandatory updates, and developer monitoring of services to let services know when something related to their coin(s) has gone awry.
Perhaps it is a blessing in disguise that my work on developing the SCI-FI coins has pushed back the final development of CCE3.
Just a thought.....
At first the goal was to be able to handle the vast majority of coins, but the more I think about it, that my not be possible from a human resource standpoint. If CCE has 150+ coins, without developer interaction, there would be no reasonable way for me to keep up with client updates/forks etc. Lets just say developer interaction with just the coins now hosted on CCE has been less then needed.
I have been trying to think of a criteria for adding coins to CCE. I used to get requests to add coins before the Spring rush because CCE gave coins some measure of legitimacy, perhaps it is time to go back to that before CCE3 is finished.
Perhaps a committee like this could play a part in which coins get onto CCE. Maybe a requirement to notify all services directly of mandatory updates, and developer monitoring of services to let services know when something related to their coin(s) has gone awry.
Perhaps it is a blessing in disguise that my work on developing the SCI-FI coins has pushed back the final development of CCE3.
Just a thought.....
January 05, 2014, 03:04:06 PM
here is a shortlist of coins with/without testnets.
altcoin testnets? Wasteland of failed assertions
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/altcoin-testnets-wasteland-of-failed-assertions-271176
Chances are that any coins released within the last 1 month, including those from the altcoin creation service, will not have testnets. Its a big problem because it means that the dev didn't test the code and may lack the skills to fix the coin if it ever becomes broken. Most scamcoin devs only want the coin to work long enough for it to get listed on a exchange so that they can dump. If that is the true intention of the dev, most likely they will not bother with testnet.
altcoin testnets? Wasteland of failed assertions
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/altcoin-testnets-wasteland-of-failed-assertions-271176
Chances are that any coins released within the last 1 month, including those from the altcoin creation service, will not have testnets. Its a big problem because it means that the dev didn't test the code and may lack the skills to fix the coin if it ever becomes broken. Most scamcoin devs only want the coin to work long enough for it to get listed on a exchange so that they can dump. If that is the true intention of the dev, most likely they will not bother with testnet.
January 05, 2014, 02:57:33 PM
My 2 cents:
- properly forked github repo, so the differences from the base coin could be easily audited
May not be so easy to properly fork if borrowing several features from several coins, though if there is some base, then it should be obvious from which revision of what it is the fork.- properly forked github repo, so the differences from the base coin could be easily audited
It would be always nice to have something better that git repo with single commit "First released coin version".
- working testnet
How many alt coins have currently a working testnet?
January 05, 2014, 02:39:57 PM
It is important to me that the 'Fair Cryptocurrency Committee' or whatever it is eventually called, it should not strictly limit itself to simplistically judging whether a new issue follows particular rules. I will explain why using a concrete example.
I've been working on an alt cryptocurrency, but with some major changes to the usual algorithms. I'm concerned that some deliberate choices made for maximal fairness and for the long-term good of a cryptocurrency, with no intent of personal profit, could disqualify it from being considered a 'fair coin'. Note that these are not the only major changes made; merely those made specifically for the sake of fairness.
Firstly, there will be little or no mining, meaning that maybe 10% of block awards or maybe no block awards at all will be available merely for having compute power. All, or all the rest, will be distributed via proof-of-stake only. For at least 90% of the blocks a smartphone with a permanent Internet connection should have as much chance of getting a block as a ten thousand dollar server.
Secondly, if there is mining, it will not be anything that can be done with ASICs or GPUs. This is because I believe in fairness. These things are two or three orders of magnitude faster, for the money, than non-specialized equipment, and I do not want to support a specialized class of miners. They tend to cause more problems than they are worth, especially when operating en masse, and it is both unfair and counterproductive in my estimation to exclude (by overwhelming) that fraction of the public that uses normal computers from mining. Finally, miners who own specialized equipment are primarily those who are mining for profit only, and who can be expected to simply dump coins as fast as they mine them in order to buy Bitcoin. They represent a drag on a coin's value, not an asset.
Thirdly, I object strongly to any pressure to allow mining pools, if mining is allowed at all. Mining pools in my estimation represent an existential threat to cryptocurrencies; first in terms of centralization, second in terms of logistics by screwing horribly with the difficulty as they jump on and off and overwhelming the probably-small server infrastructure of a fledgling currency, and third in their propensity to attract miners who believe that no other cryptocurrency exists for any reason other than to dump it on the market in order to buy Bitcoin.
Fourth, as is necessary with proof-of-stake, there will be a ridiculously large premine. My intent is to distribute about a million units *WIDELY* (to at least a hundred thousand pubkeys) before even announcing. People who check will mostly discover that they already own the corresponding privkey to at least one of them. Some will own more than one; that is unfair, but can't be helped. To the extent that addresses are held by those who do not participate, the coins that those nonparticipants could otherwise claim will (mostly) eventually be claimed on a random basis by those who do participate. The initial blocks will be created with a script that permits more and more addresses to spend the coinage as time goes on; each month, about ten percent of them will become spendable by an additional existing key, until the distribution is complete or until they have gone through seven keys each. Those who participate will occasionally "inherit" a distribution award from those who do not.
During the first year about 30 thousand coins (that is, three percent of the existing million) will be created. Thereafter each year will see three percent more coins created than the previous year. So, 3 percent long term inflation after the initial distribution. But absolutely no relevance to anything like a 'halving time' or 'ultimate total number of coins' criterion that a committee is likely to come up with. This is specifically to avoid an initial phase of very high rewards, because that would attract pump'n'dumpers rather than people who simply want a currency to use.
Now, I believe that this outlines a plan for a very "fair" cryptocurrency. In fact fairness is one of my *PRIMARY* intents in creating it. But I also believe that because it works differently from the expected model, it is very unlikely to meet any set-in-stone criterion of "fairness" based on the usual set of expectations.
Therefore I ask that whatever else you decide here the committee should remain free to exercise human judgement as to whether a new issue is fair, rather than merely interpreting narrow rules.
I've been working on an alt cryptocurrency, but with some major changes to the usual algorithms. I'm concerned that some deliberate choices made for maximal fairness and for the long-term good of a cryptocurrency, with no intent of personal profit, could disqualify it from being considered a 'fair coin'. Note that these are not the only major changes made; merely those made specifically for the sake of fairness.
Firstly, there will be little or no mining, meaning that maybe 10% of block awards or maybe no block awards at all will be available merely for having compute power. All, or all the rest, will be distributed via proof-of-stake only. For at least 90% of the blocks a smartphone with a permanent Internet connection should have as much chance of getting a block as a ten thousand dollar server.
Secondly, if there is mining, it will not be anything that can be done with ASICs or GPUs. This is because I believe in fairness. These things are two or three orders of magnitude faster, for the money, than non-specialized equipment, and I do not want to support a specialized class of miners. They tend to cause more problems than they are worth, especially when operating en masse, and it is both unfair and counterproductive in my estimation to exclude (by overwhelming) that fraction of the public that uses normal computers from mining. Finally, miners who own specialized equipment are primarily those who are mining for profit only, and who can be expected to simply dump coins as fast as they mine them in order to buy Bitcoin. They represent a drag on a coin's value, not an asset.
Thirdly, I object strongly to any pressure to allow mining pools, if mining is allowed at all. Mining pools in my estimation represent an existential threat to cryptocurrencies; first in terms of centralization, second in terms of logistics by screwing horribly with the difficulty as they jump on and off and overwhelming the probably-small server infrastructure of a fledgling currency, and third in their propensity to attract miners who believe that no other cryptocurrency exists for any reason other than to dump it on the market in order to buy Bitcoin.
Fourth, as is necessary with proof-of-stake, there will be a ridiculously large premine. My intent is to distribute about a million units *WIDELY* (to at least a hundred thousand pubkeys) before even announcing. People who check will mostly discover that they already own the corresponding privkey to at least one of them. Some will own more than one; that is unfair, but can't be helped. To the extent that addresses are held by those who do not participate, the coins that those nonparticipants could otherwise claim will (mostly) eventually be claimed on a random basis by those who do participate. The initial blocks will be created with a script that permits more and more addresses to spend the coinage as time goes on; each month, about ten percent of them will become spendable by an additional existing key, until the distribution is complete or until they have gone through seven keys each. Those who participate will occasionally "inherit" a distribution award from those who do not.
During the first year about 30 thousand coins (that is, three percent of the existing million) will be created. Thereafter each year will see three percent more coins created than the previous year. So, 3 percent long term inflation after the initial distribution. But absolutely no relevance to anything like a 'halving time' or 'ultimate total number of coins' criterion that a committee is likely to come up with. This is specifically to avoid an initial phase of very high rewards, because that would attract pump'n'dumpers rather than people who simply want a currency to use.
Now, I believe that this outlines a plan for a very "fair" cryptocurrency. In fact fairness is one of my *PRIMARY* intents in creating it. But I also believe that because it works differently from the expected model, it is very unlikely to meet any set-in-stone criterion of "fairness" based on the usual set of expectations.
Therefore I ask that whatever else you decide here the committee should remain free to exercise human judgement as to whether a new issue is fair, rather than merely interpreting narrow rules.
I think coins that are relying on a substantially unique code base should be treated somewhat differently than coins which are just copy/paste clones. Otherwise this organization would do more to stiffle innovation than help it. As far as the copy/paste scrypt and sha clones go though there really should be a compelling reason for creating another coin at all, in addition to the other requirements listed. The whole point of currency is to be at least a somewhat universal unit for trade.
That said, I do like the idea of a colbertcoin for publicity purposes IF the developer can get a Colbert endorsement (he started a super PAC so why not this?) AND if the developer has the skills to pull off a decent coin/launch. On the later point, I would hope the dev has enough familiarity with the code to not fork an existing coin with known bugs or other issues (which is a large portion of them).
January 05, 2014, 11:28:40 AM
ColbertCoin has asked if they can be the first coin to receive the approval and support of this committee. This is a great opportunity for us to develop a first draft and see if it works on a real launch. I will review the points that members have brought up and create a master list of guidelines that the dev can follow to ensure a fair launch of the coin. Please feel free to bring up more reasonable criteria you would like to see in a coins creation and launch that would appeal to the community.
January 05, 2014, 11:16:59 AM
2) All new coins seeking a FairCoin Foundation Stamp of Approval must launch with the follow.
a) windows and linux wallets
b) source code
c) at least 3 pools open to registration before launch
b) an official website
c) github
d) allow a decent time before launch so that people aren't caught off guard by a new coin launching at some obscure time.
My 2 cents:a) windows and linux wallets
b) source code
c) at least 3 pools open to registration before launch
b) an official website
c) github
d) allow a decent time before launch so that people aren't caught off guard by a new coin launching at some obscure time.
- properly forked github repo, so the differences from the base coin could be easily audited
- working testnet
I agree. Another member mentioned this in an earlier post. Especially the fact that it should have a working testnet. Most copy and paste devs don't even know what the testnet is. The list of coins that are trading on exchanges without a testnet is a mile long.
January 05, 2014, 11:14:41 AM
Great idea!
But there is a coin named faircoin.
But there is a coin named faircoin.
faircoin is just a working title. We are still working on a proper name. any input would be welcomed.
January 05, 2014, 10:32:49 AM
Great idea!
But there is a coin named faircoin.
But there is a coin named faircoin.
January 05, 2014, 07:04:08 AM
2) All new coins seeking a FairCoin Foundation Stamp of Approval must launch with the follow.
a) windows and linux wallets
b) source code
c) at least 3 pools open to registration before launch
b) an official website
c) github
d) allow a decent time before launch so that people aren't caught off guard by a new coin launching at some obscure time.
My 2 cents:a) windows and linux wallets
b) source code
c) at least 3 pools open to registration before launch
b) an official website
c) github
d) allow a decent time before launch so that people aren't caught off guard by a new coin launching at some obscure time.
- properly forked github repo, so the differences from the base coin could be easily audited
- working testnet
January 05, 2014, 12:49:10 AM
Hire me, i'll make you a pro site
Once we get an actual name down and secure the domain, we can discuss site design. Compensation would be through donations. I feel that people who wish to donate their time and energy into this project would like to see altcoins succeed and not just use altcoins as a way to become BTC/FIAT rich.
Not to get rich, i'm genuinely interested in creating a site and contributing to this project.
PM me, when your ready to take this to the next level.
Jump to: