Topic: FairCryptocurrency Committee - FairLaunch Approval - Please Read - page 2. (Read 3906 times)

not trying to be negative here but that could all be done for less than 1BTC all it will do is filter out the opportunist scamers

mabe the coin has to be backed by a long term forum member ( mabe over 6 months and no bad rep and active on the forums to stop the buying of accounts )

A seal of approval for a coin does not stop the creation of scam coins.

Its just to point out that some coins meet a standard that are safer, less risky to invest in

I can't see how a voluntary committee with absolutely no enforcement powers whatsoever could stop the next great innovation in alt currency.

We just want to call out the pump and dump scammers, is that too much to ask for?

We have not set any parameters or guidelines yet, its all being discussed right now.

Simply cut n pasting Litecoin does not make you legit.

If a new user with 3 posts starts up an altcoin "OMGAMAZINGCOIN - litecoin clone!!"
And then we see a rush of newly created users signing up saying

"Great coin!"

"Nice idea!

"I love it!

"This will do well!"

Yeah, guess what? This is not getting the stamp of approval.

Not that the dev will care, they can keep on with the charades, but they will not be getting the nod of approval from the committee.

You are correct. We can scrap the source code idea in order to avoid homogenization of altcoins. Devs will be free to develop code with what ever parameters they chose to do.

However, when it comes to launch, devs know that by launching without source code, pools, or compiled clients, they just give themselves and insiders an edge when it comes to coin distribution. Giving such power over few individuals whose only intention is to sell the coins into BTC is dangerous. This creates a lack of confidence in a free market and puts a burden on the entire altcoin community as a whole.

Except nothing proposed accomplishes that. LollipopCoin creator can copy/paste search/replace LiteCoin code, and then meet just make sure he/she meets the following:


Criteria of the above are actually most easily met by quick copy/paste clones and pump/dump schemes, than by new dev efforts with limited resources.

It sounds like this is actually (inadvertently?) going to encourage copy/paste clones and the homogenization of alts:


It does not solve the flood of crap alts.

It also potentially hinders innovative systems that differ in new fundamental ways.

Has anyone see the "altcoin" announcements section of this forum?. Thanks to the altcoin generation service and coins like DOGE, you now have:

shoecoin
leprocoin
oilcoin
crapcoin
cagecoin
monacoin
hexacoin
coinye
electric

plus many more, these are the ones I just saw on the first page! We can't force these coins to follow FairCoin guidelines but if the committee reviews these coins and provides the ones that qualify with an approval rating, it would make it easier for new comers to avoid the obvious scam coins.

We all know what a scamcoin constitutes of. Instamining, Premining with no ledger, Front loaded "early adopter" blocks and launching a coin with low diff. You can also include keyloggers/trojan wallet stealers, no source code, lack of compiled clients and mining pools at launch.

So the committee can set guidelines that they can *choose* to follow so that they gain more support from the public. Coin development is becoming saturated and more competitive. Serious coin developers would welcome a service like FairCoin in order to give them an edge over other developers.  

We are not looking to prevent anybody from starting a coin.

The purpose here is to let newbie0872, who just joined yesterday, know that there is a difference between litecoin and lollipopcoin.

More of an advisory committee, a seal of approval... not regulation!

A regulation committee is a great idea.

Working with Forum administrator to make this thread, or similar ....a Sticky thread.

Crap coins can meet these standards, no?

How does this prevent someone copy/pasting search/replacing to create a coin---and then following whatever procedures FairCoin produces to be labelled 'fair'?

The idea in no way discourages the creation of crap coins, just helps everyone recognize them.

Loving the pushback...we've hit a nerve.

How does this proposal in any way discourage the creation of crapcoins? All it does is set standards to legitimize them.

Only idiots can throw money at something they have no knowledge about, no standard can help idiots
Look at the passwords people use. Do they know they have to use a strong long password with a mix of chars numbers and symbols? Yes but they don't

I believe you are correct. If you notice when these crapcoins first launch, all the new members shout "Good Coin" and "This should be good" before the dev has even launched the source code. All they care about is mining and dumping. In order for these scams to work, they depend on the uninformed public to believe them that the coin is good.

All you hear is "to da moon" and "don't sell cheap" and "this coin will do this trust me". Out right scams. All while they are just waiting for an exchange to pick up the coin so they can dump and move on. If we succeed in educating people about the scams and allowing good projects to really shine, these scams will go the way of the dodo bird.

no exchanges will pick them up, no miners will mine, no one will do google docs exchanges. The scammers and mine/dump folk will only trade amongst themselves and slowly even they will stop.  

What is fair is subjective.

I think this idea has the best intentions, but is conceptually flawed. Future currencies would be judged by the established norms of today.

Consider Bitcoin being declared a scam at its outset. It was judged by the dominant understanding of currency that existed at that point in time time. It still is declared a scam by many. I believe this foundation has potential to stand in the way of innovation.

Is anything that radically departs from the current dominant mining model a scam---or is it possible for fair and viable currencies to pursue alternatives?

Mining itself has concerns that must be considered. (botnets? asic? ghash.io? centralization?)

Bitcoin is beginning to gain mainstream traction. It is not that Bitcoin used to be a scam and now isn't; instead, understanding of Bitcoin has grown. Usage and those willing to take risk developed that understanding, and disseminated the knowledge they gained. Understanding the mechanics of a new currency can take a long period of time, in order to for individuals to judge its fairness.

I think NXT is a great example of potential innovation that may be threatened. NXT began as closed source. It radically departs from the traditional crypto currency mining model. If it is flawed for those reasons, then it may still bring tremendous value in concepts that can be adapted to other new systems. NXT is in its infancy, and understanding has barely started. I think the crypto currency community benefits at large by things like NXT, MasterCoin, eMunie, and Ripple being pursued by those that believe in each respective system and accept the risks of their involvement.

How can you avoid an overly restrictive definition of fairness?

Ultimately, anyone can create a service that pumps out clones coins that meet the proposed standards. I see this proposal as further encouraging the homogenization of crypto currency. It encourages a single point of failure in the path of innovation.

I appreciate the motivations, and agree on that level, but do not see this as solving any more problems than it creates.

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.

Are scam coin developers and miners really this scared of a little Fair or Safe
coin advisory, a warning label?

We must be on the right track.

You have made a valid point. Each coin should be looked at on a case by case scenario. This is why FairCoin would need a combination of trusted senior members and jr members to review and vote on if the coin merits FairCoin Approval. Its clear that your development approach is sound and not just some fly by night rush scamcoin launch. Good devs can wait a day or two to let FairCoin look at the project before they launch, and use FairCoin to give their project more merit. 

exactly. its not policing because we don't enforce any laws. There is no consequence to anyone launching coins without seeking approval. However, we can influence good devs to launch quality products that others can really put their support behind. This should diminish the amount of scamcoins being released and create legit coins that have a chance of becoming Bitcoin 2.0.