Topic: GoldCoins (GC) Idea promotion (Read 2762 times)

Seriously, shut up.

Bump

so can i remove notify then?

Garbage doesn't need bumping.

Bump

@lightlord
At first thank you for your interesting idea.
But in my opinion Bitcoin can´t be an alternative to physical gold. If you want to hold / parking your money for years then could be gold the better more solid way. In this case https://www.casascius.com/ could be interesting.

Then I don´t understand why goldcoin would prevent deflation?
I think it would increase the deflation compared with Bitcoin system because the devalueing in combination with the difficulty work against deflation.
Now Bitcoin is in a very young state with a volatile but steady increasing demand and then the goldcoinprice would be blowing up and there would be no system which works against the trend and stabilize the price.

A further disadvantage is that in the first year all 100k goldcoins would be mined and then the early adopters could be make the price ;-)
The steady increasing amount of Bitcoin will decrease this force of early adopters.

Look at btc-e.com

Do we really need more alternative Bitcoins?
The prices are very low and volatile compared to Bitcoin.

There's presumably a cost to pools in both setting up merged mining in the first place and adding a new chain though. They have to mess with their pool setup and risk breaking mining for coins that are actually making them and their miners money.

Rohhh, isn't he cute..
Congrats for inventing wishful patenting!

The only way this would even be a viable experiment would be if someone was willing to back it with another currency. For example, guarantee they would always buy 1 GC for 1 USD. Otherwise, it's just another scamcoin.

And even if someone does want to try the backed-cryptocurrency concept, please don't inherit the design flaws of Bitcoin.

Two options now, me distributing them is on second.

The idea is to only create 100K; and to run out fast, and not come in for years.
This is planed to run out in like 1 month; thus keeping its value.
Hence that's why its got its name Goldcoin.

Mining will still work, it will occur off transaction. And this currency won't devalue as much.
Everyday BTC get mined, and the demand to supply ratio remains same without demand going up;
thus resulting in lower prices.

10% more BTC = 10% less value, which is occurring atm.

I plan to stop deflation, and that's my goal here.

He would most likely have a monopoly on the exchange.  I did a rough calculation and came up with 700 BTC per year or 2 BTC per day are generated in transactions which is nothing.  Namecoin use to have a transaction that was deleted, that killed off 80,000 coins.  However to register a domain name is now less than 0.5 NMC.  However, users never really cared much about the fee.

So I was wondering the sales tax in California is about 9%.  You buy two tacos for $0.99 and the price is $1.09.  However, I think we could delete a lot of coins with a minimum 0.01 fee and a 5% tax, where 2% goes to miners and 3% is deleted.  This will give incentive for miners to promote transactions.  The best way for transactions is businesses.   Namecoin has about 2000 nmc transactions per hour.  That would generate 100 nmc sales tax.  60 to deleted and 40 to miners.  But, miners would be getting a deflating coin.  

Doing a quickcheck of bitcoin they do about 3000 coins per block.  A 5% tax would be 150 coins with 90 going to deflation and 60 to miners.  Thus miners would be getting about the same reward in a deflationary currency.  The deflation would be about 14000 a day.  Over a year you may be talking about 50% deflation.  Instead of the public union jerkoffs getting it we will.  Rising prices will create more interest which leads to more buzz which leads to up up up.      

Good luck getting doublec to create&support this for free.

The genius doublec already fixed ioc and ixc.  He also runs and designs exchanges.  He could do it.

1. I like the low number to start 100K as it will look impressive on the exchanges.  It may reach parity with bitcoin sooner.
2. I like the zero or 0 mining reward.  The deflation as coins are lost, will boost value.
3. I think you should put 100% of the coins on an exchange as part of the "code of ethics" and put a permanent sell order 100 goldcoin for 1 btc.  This will generate 1000 BTC that can be used for a permanent buy order to buy 1 btc for 100 goldcoins.
4. 25% of transaction fees are deleted, and 75% go to miners.  With a same or smaller fee than bitcoin.  Thus the fee might be 0.001. .00075 going to miners and .00025 deleted.
5. If you really trust the owner, gold could be bought with the coin, and you could demand payment of goldcoin for actual gold.

Since this is a better deal to owners of bitcoin, many would switch.

You could actual set the total coins to 21 million and offer a 1:1 exchange ratio.  1 goldcoin for 1 btc.  You could always exchange back.  However, if you offer an automatic an permanent exchange.  As coins are deleted, you could make it so you get more btc back.  So say you have 21 million to start and due to transactions you might get back 2 btc for every gc.  An exchange might be built into the client.  

To really tweak your brain.  Since 21 million would equal bitcoin, it could very well happen that goldcoin would own 21 million bitcoin or 100% of them.  They would offer better value to owners and businesses.  

This may also be a way out to an ever increasing block size.

I think it's inaccurate to attribute the drop in valvue of an alt currency like SC or LTC to additional mining. At the moment most drops or gains in a currency value are more determined by investors general feelings of the coins. Especially with LTC there are so few coins out there yet that mining fuels *interest* in the coin.


 

I really like the idea of "Delato-Coin", and someone should definitely try it, but you have not put this plan together very well. + You can't code.

Good luck getting one of the developers here to take time out of their already busy schedules to implement your poorly thought out plan.

I encourage you to keep thinking of new ideas, but this idea is flawed.  It's similar to someone learning about stock splits & saying how about we have our stock split once every 2 months?  You need to learn how and why all the pieces fit together.  Keep trying.

Why pay ten million bucks to secure a network on which you want to make payments smaller than Bitcoin's minimum/default transaction fee, for things only worth such small amounts?

An attacker who has 2 CPUs to your 1 could maybe make as much or more selling you routing of transactions or verifiable glimpses of a verifiable blockchain than trying to buy something off of you and double-spending.

In fact the entity with the two cores to your one core might even tend on average to be more likely to have stuff to sell to you than any interest in buying things from you.

(Not sure of that; one theory has it that the rich buy stuff from the poor since the rich have more to buy stuff with; another theory imagines they get rich by selling something or having ancestors who used to sell something; how does that balance out in random samples of okay in this cafe count the processing power of each person in the cafe and compare it to which ones are vendors of something to the others and which are buyers of something from others? Does the owner of the venue often turn out to be the richest / most powerful? Or does that depend of whether clientele is upscale or downscale compared to the proprietor?)

Maybe trivially inexpensive coins might be great for tiny stuff where you for example buy a couple of minutes of wifi access for some almost-disposable-coin the vendor sells on some exchange/market as instantly as possible, almost throwing it away as worthless for some tiny fraction of a bitcoin, but will cash out in bitcoins some day if they ever have enough value in their bitcoin account at that exchange/market to bother paying bitcoin's minimum/default transaction fee or thereabouts to cash it out?

So some people might do a double-spend, losing me my tiny pay for some tiny number of minutes I gave them wifi access for. Big deal. Leaving the cafe with the cup I served them their coffee in would cost me orders of magnitude more...

-MarkM-

"I will distribute it out (setting price)"

lol?  By distribution, you are in effect centralizing the currency.

But really, the security of the bitcoin network is due to the number of people mining...  I can't see any advantage to the system you describe, well, at all.  There is no output based on work, no large network backing, no logical distribution of the currency.  Why mine off transactions when I can get xxx coin from you for free?  Better yet, why would you ever give the majority of your coin away, or the people you gave it to give it away when you can hoard it?  The idea sounds like, "Why don't I just print my own bank notes and because the bank notes exist and they are scarce, they must be valuable".  The value of gold is mostly based around a decreasing rate of return for the amount of effort put into mining gold and the decreasing supply of gold.  I don't see how this makes a lot of sense, sorry.  I just don't see how it could ever get the kind of computing power required to be "secure" either.

The only way people would ever mine en masse is if you made the transaction fees enormous too, which is an obvious problem due to the fact that the item is intended to be used for trade.

Merge mining changes the cost equation somewhat though. Someone can mine bitcoin and this chain at no additional cost. If the chain creator can get a large miner or pool to merge mine it then there's less risk of a double spend attack. Before merge mining there was an opportunity cost in supporting these chain experiments. Not so much now. There's a flip side though. An attacker can mine a fork to double spend for free too since they can earn bitcoins at the same time.