Topic: GreenCoin [OP upgrade] - A personalized carbon emission offset credit - page 2. (Read 5835 times)

Bought us some more time on trex Hope to hear back from someone soon! I hope to help

Is there any developers on the team for GRE? I'm curious as to what's going on with it, always had a special spot for GRE and would like to see it take off

yes, I've seen this too, this is a known bug.

I wonder for folks who deny AGW completely and given a mechanism like GreenCoin, or something else similar that comes along, a lot of them quietly participate anyway because it would simply be too lucrative to miss if out if they were wrong.

Polar bears can swim 200 miles perhaps but that can't swim faster than a seal... the issue with melting ice has NOTHING to do with swimming... it has to do with EATING.... they grab seals as they come up thru through the ice to breath...  no ice? No seal hunting.... bear starves...

RE: Not using PoS -- the coin works currently by splitting the rewards with the winning miner and the Foundation, the latter of which then distributes them to renewable producers to effectuate the carbon emission offset calculation. PoS cannot service this requirement easily.

I have been discussing coin upgrades with some folks and PoS has been taken off the table, as info.

The polar bear has come to represent more of a symbolic relationship of the forced nature of species adaptation. The jury is still out on the how these changes will actually manifest for any specific species. How far a "polar bear can swim" is only one aspect of it's life cycle. Probably more important is how the food chain will change from the bottom up, given warming in the region of +10 C (18F) or more. And most people, honestly speaking man, don't care about bears, they care about themselves, and "global warming" or "climate change" (whatever the words du jour are) is about change for people too. And change can be harsh, which is scary.

I will not speculate whether or not you you simply have a fear-based agenda to grind about a "New World order dictatorship" which is sort of a thin conspiracy theory poorly supported by physical evidence about ice caps (and which is grossly incomplete). In the theater of competing conspiracy theories, one of fossil conglomerates disseminating misleading "scientific" data for their own profitable agenda (more accurately, their interpretation of the data) is far more plausible than one of a new global dictatorship social order, financed by a carbon tax that hasn't even begun to be enforced. While discussing conclusions from grossly incomplete data I want to also point out that plants do indeed need CO2 to grow, though obviously don't need >400 ppm to grow since they've been doing just fine for 500M years at 50-80% of that. However we need CO2 back to 350 ppm in order to survive catastrophic changes for ourselves and more importantly our children.

However, with that said, you're actually here to help prove a point where you and GreenCoin are in agreement: Carbon taxes are not effective and That's Bad. Or at least, in our position, carbon taxes and cap and trade systems are grossly inadequate constructs to solve The Problem, and therefore are doomed to failure regardless of the level of implementation they ever reach.

If you didn't research GreenCoin before posting, and merely bristled at the polar bear picture, let me explain the central premise: GreenCoin is a mechanism that serves a for-profit reduction of carbon output through a simple system of incentives for renewables that carry a socially-derived, open-market value. Some finer points:

- GreenCoin is owned and traded by individuals
- People buy and sell GreenCoin for their own selfish purposes; to try to make money or not, to try to help AGW or not (John Galt would be proud), or whatever their personal reasons are. That's a major coup de grace against the "New World order Dictatorship" advancement. So we are on the same team here.
- Government involvement is not necessary
- Participation is voluntary, you are free to participate in GreenCoin or not
- GreenCoin is not a tax or other punitive measure on fossil based production. It's merely a socially determined, value-added incentive for carbon-mitigated production. And I'll do you one better: fossil-based producers can go start their own "FossilCoin" and solicit certain folks, The Great World Defenders of Massive, Coordinated Scientific and World Government Co-Conspirator Carbon Fraud, as buyers. Hence the term "free-market system."

thanks for stopping by and posting, I think these are important things to be discussing.

You can keep it as green coin but relaunch it with around 10 million coins. Those who are truly investors in Green will hold and not to many will sell. You will still achieve a decent price so that you can continue your project. Right now there are too many green coins and that's not too attractive to investors. Just redo a relaunch...

Carbon tax is just a scam, we need carbon for our plants to grow, without it there would be no life on this planet. The  sole purpose for it is for New World Order to pay for their global dictatorship, remember that.

Remember in the 90's they called it "global warming", when people started to notice that the planet wasn't warming they changed it to "climate change", LOL.

I hate that picture of the polar bear:



Awww the poor polar bear is stranded due to the melting ice caps. Even though they can swim up to 200 miles.

In fact the ice cap in the north pole increased by about 40% last year.

GreenCoin could switch to a counterparty (or other asset-based) coin. Thoughts?

nice GreenCoin....

Reposting with updates:

GreenCoin is experiencing a technical issue. For a short time now the Foundation has been receiving 20 coins from one or more of the pools instead of 1000.

Update: here is a link to a block containing the error:
http://explorer.cryptoblox.com/block/61afd6499e56ff5036b13fa9cbc86b59a48a3f180ff7bbcbf061c7c9640849d2

[It is important to note that all other aspects of the coin, including merged mining, transactions, average block time, etc are all working perfectly.]

The link above indicates the coins coming into the Foundation. The amount is either "20" or "1000". Sometimes there are more "1000's" than "20's" so it probably depends on the relative strength of the pools set up correctly versus the unsub pool. Without an operating block explorer I wasn't able to determine whether the coins were being burned inadvertently. However, the evidence on Bittrex suggest strongly that one of the pools is receiving 1,980 coins and only sending 20 to the Foundation, due to programmatic-looking selling on Bittrex often being in exact multiples of 1980. The fact we get 20 coins also looks a lot like a pool donation of 2%. So the unsub pool probably has somehow set up their mining incorrectly and they keep 1980 coins that go to their miners and the 2% that was meant to go to the pool as a fee comes to us. Whether this was intentionally done or not is less important than the fact that it's possible. I alerted ncsupanda to the issue but he has not responded. I do not personally have the technical ability to fully address the issue and come up with a technical solution. If there are others who have the ability to help we do have some financing available. Please PM me. We have 1 BTC - 1.5 BTC available for this depending on the workload. Step 1 would be to fully understand the issue and then Step 2 would be to come up with the proper solution and implement it. Also it would be very helpful to have a block explorer working again I am soliciting this again for 0.15 BTC.

As far as payouts have been going, the foundation has been consistently receiving about 350,000-500,000 coins (update, currently averaging about 700,000 coins/day), so I have donated in the difference to represent a "full payout" (that is, to reach the total of ~1.4M per day). The coin is cheap enough that I can do this for now and maybe a bit longer but it is not a long term solution. The Foundation is mandated to distribute the coins it actually receives per day and so I may drop the payout down to the actual coins received if I can no longer donate in the difference.

If your pool is receiving 1,980 coins instead of 1,000 per block, if you could please shut down for now or attempt to correct your pool set-up on your end I would greatly appreciate it. Update: whoever is mining to this address: GQiGwRM5UTdGDeBoCqaGwHbQLenxqMq3U9 Obviously the code should make it impossible to defeat the compulsory shared coinbase transaction to the Foundation, so we apologize for this and are looking into solutions.

My analysis:

• The coin still works in the job it is trying to do as a carbon emission offset credit because the calculation is not dependent on the coin's split between the Foundation and the miners. Therefore, during the period where we are looking at solutions the coin can continue to operate as it currently does.
• This is a good time to look at all options on the table. For instance, (1) the coin could be forked with the coinbase tx code fix but also could contain any upgrades desired. (2) We could go to a PoS coin at this time and remove mining completely. The pros and cons of PoS versus PoW really need to be vetted first though. I think it matches out environmental imperative to have a coin that eliminates or minimizes PoW mining as much as possible, so eventually I think we should go in the PoS direction. Maybe given the current circumstances this is the right time to try it.
• I continue to be committed to this coin and if solutions are on the table I can raise the financing to implement them, within a reasonable amount.

Oil companies quietly prepare for a future of carbon pricing

And so it begins. $60/tonne = 6 cents per kg. GreenCoin is ~$0.18/kg. An open market price is much more accurate (I'm not insinuating GreenCoin has enough market depth to accurately reflect CO2 pricing yet, but it is interesting how close it is).

I predict the total global carbon problem is worth $3T per year, starting, at the very latest in 2022. There will never be more than 10B greencoins in existence over 40 years.

No one single entity, government, private business or otherwise, has come up with a way to solve this global problem. NOBODY OWNS ANY OF THIS YET.

I'll let you do the math.

Previously asked and answered:

Scrypt:
We chose scrypt for a couple reasons. First, scrypt asic mining will reduce power consumption considerably for mining in the future. The second reason it has a good, stable history.

As to the power problem: The amount of mining ultimately would be fairly miniscule to the scale of the problem at hand. Global CO2 emissions are clocking over 31 GT annually. Let's take a look at bitcoin: obviously considered to be power-hog, but it's only 0.03% of the grid (I've read this elsewhere, if there is a better number, let me know). Electric power generation contributes 25% of the total global CO2 emissions, so 0.0003 * 0.25 * 31 GT = 2.3 MT of annual CO2 emissions coming from bitcoin's existence, or 0.0075% of all CO2 emissions. Now, we are all hopeful greencoin will become a great coin, and even if it did, I doubt it would be using substantially more power than bitcoin. If greencoin was capable of onlining green energy to even a 1% reduction in global electric power emissions, it means the coin reduces 33X more carbon than is produced by miners. At a 10% global reduction, it's over 300X and so on. Additionally, miners have an incentive to go green on their rigs because they get mined coins AND produced coins. Bitcoin doesn't offer this additional incentive. This is all before you even begin to account for the trade-offs that might actually work in cryptos' favor as an alternative payment system, for example, the energy needed to send payments in more traditional banking ways also uses power (servers, etc), and bitcoin might actually be net "greener."

And to add to the answer, now that we are merged-mined, only the most valuable coins in the merge should be assigned the power allocation since miners are basically receiving the smaller value coins as a bonus. In a way, we've latched on to these other coins like DOGE that will be mined anyways, so there is negligible additional carbon output as a result. Certainly, in the future IF greencoin were to become quite valuable, then we would have a power use responsibility however, and at that time, the above answer would apply anyhow.

There are too many coins - If you want to see some really price movement limit the number of coins...

Good question. A POW coin uses too much energy to be called green.

thank you bos its work now

dev,any further development plan for DOSH?

why is this coin not POS?