Topic: MC2: A cryptocurrency based on a hybrid PoW/PoS system - page 29. (Read 195188 times)

You are right on the nose with the adoption problem. I've given this a thought and I think there's a way to make it all work in a way that's easy to explain to newcomers and might even have some advantages in day to day usage:

Dollars are used and traded like this:
XXXXXX.YY
Where X are whole dollars and Y are 1/10 or 1/100 of a dollar. Everyone learns this at a fairly young age and understands readily.

So why not display new cryptocoinage as
WWWWWWWW.ZZ
Where W are whole 'satoshi' with a a standard blockchain and Z the same coin but stored in either a quick blockchain or colored coin (the crypto meaning, not the artistic meaning) blockchain?  This way when you want to purchase something and you have, say... 23543256.43 NCC it means you can either buy a house with the whole part (a transaction where you don't mind waiting 10 mins - 1 hour) or buy groceries with the .43 part (where transactions are in the 10 s range)...

Easy to explain, easy to know when you need to transfer money to your 'fast' side - the only problem is the divisibility/value of the fast side, it might eventually need to go to 3 or more decimals...

...

With respect to the other main topic in this thread, I think the idea of starting the coin with a credit union (a better name than syndicate, honest!) rather than a federal reserve or central bank is an improvement... But with all the social stuff, there go your anonymous cryptocoins!

Is netcoin considering to change bitcoin input-output-scripts system with account balance ledger + min blockchain? If yes then I could put some design concept of such sytem in wiki. I'd really like to do it, but if you don't want such change I would only waste my time. What I mean is:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/white-paper-purely-p2p-crypto-currency-with-finite-mini-blockchain-195275

One big disadvantage to crypto is the inability to buy crypto with credit cards.

If you could implement a system of assurance or disputing somehow, it will spur another level of mass adoption..

The colored coins concept in the OP is the same as the world of warcraft like colored coins idea Benny1985 described earlier?

I hope to see a lot of these ideas come to fruition over the next year.  The ideas in this thread are piling up, some major undertakings. Hopefully other devs will step up and help in big ways so that Taco and the core devs can focus on the coin.

It does sound reasonable. Basically why can't we just upload a resume or something similar to the social network similar to how linkedin works and then the employer can review it and hire people with Netcoins? Like I need artwork for my website, and I have 500 Netcoins, so now I browse the Netcoin social network by searching for artists in the employment section or freelance section and suddenly there are profiles of many talented artists to choose from with porfolios of their work.

This is the R&D phase. But I think the goal is to make this coin not just an alt-coin but a potential successor to Bitcoin. Part of the reason to put a social network in place prior to launch and collect email addresses for pre-registration is to have a mechanism to determine just how interested the community is. You can track this by collecting email addresses. A social network site gives you even more data about the community which you serve. It can let you know exactly what sort of businesses need to be started and how much demand there is for them. Also it gives you a way to distribute information such as talking points should there be a need for political activism or just warnings to protect the network in the form of a PSA.

Finally and perhaps the most important possible function of a social network and of the R&D phase is to actually attract the smartest minds in the cryptocurrency community to Netcoin, then set up a wiki where the best ideas and solutions from those minds are organized, then after all of this is set up begin coding and starting businesses around those ideas and solutions.

Research and development also requires some level of testing, so there will be a testing phase to see how well certain experimental ideas can work. Like for instance there is a debate amongst this thread about whether or not there should be a cap and how many coins there should be total. I say there should be 11 million or less total to avoid inflating cryptocurrencies in general and to make it more deflationary than Bitcoin (because I favor deflationary currencies as an innovation over fiat). This is currently being debated as we speak and there are several mathematical models which show you can have an unlimited total number of coins and have it sill be deflationary if the inflation rate is very slow which has the affect of producing short term scarcity even if in the long term it's an unlimited supply. The purpose of a cap is just because that mechanism is easier to understand, you don't have to analyze graphs and complex models to determine what will happen if I say there will only be 11 million coins total, you know exactly what will happen.

Now if I say there will be an infinite amount of coins total, but that the inflation rate will never be more than 5% at any given time, what you might not know is that the inflation rate is actually more important than the total number. If two coins have a total number of 11 million coins but coin A is inflating at 50% while coin B is inflating at 5% a year then coin B is far more scarce than coin A and will take a much longer time to reach 11 million. This would mean the price would be far higher for coin B if the market caps were equal. But miners like to get a lot of coins, they might not mine the coin due to psychology.

So here is how I think about it, I say I'm smart but there are many smart people in the community and there might be people smarter than me. I say we should start identifying what we want from this coin. As an investor I want the coin to be as scarce as possible, meaning if I trade my Bitcoins for it I want to know that someday a Netcoin will be worth twice what a Bitcoin will be worth based on mathematics and psychology. If I don't fully believe this will happen I will not be making that trade, especially during the time when Bitcoins could be $1000 each and rising. So basically Netcoin has to be a better gold than Bitcoin at least, in order to appeal to investors. To appeal to miners it offers some ASIC resistance and other features to distinguish it from Bitcoin and from Litecoin. To appeal to technologists the inflation rate may actually be adjustable by the community but once again this would be why a syndicate would have to be formed early along with a social network.

Overall, let's set the goal to make Netcoin better than all the other coins in as many areas as possible by identifying the strengths and weaknesses of each coin. I believe scarcity and deflationary mechanisms are a strength for a coin to have but I also recognize that putting a total cap on the coin is not the only way to do it. I think ASIC resistance doesn't really appeal to me as much as a miner because I don't really think it will stop the mining farms and cloud mining from private entities, which is why I would think a syndicate would have to form. That problem is actually very hard to solve and the best idea I had was to randomize the algorithm so that no one knows which algorithm kicks in at which time of day forcing everyone to mine at all times to wait for the difficulty to fall for their particular device. 

On the wiki can we set up a page where details of the technical problems are mentioned along with the proposed solutions? Also a list of desired features that people want which appeals to different demographics? Such as a category for investors on the wiki with a list of features which appeals to them and then for miners with a list of features which appeals to them and then a mathematics section where people can look deeper into the different theories of inflation, deflation and different formulas involving that complete with the pros and cons from the proponents of the different strategies?

My opinion or idea is to launch a social network along with the coin and tie it into the IPO somehow. So let's say the IPO takes place and early investors pledge money to get early coins or whatever tacotime decides? Well my idea is to either encourage or require they join the social network as part of the process of receiving the return on their investment.

At first I was thinking a newsletter of mailing list but then I thought why not take it all the way? An entire social network should be formed. The coin is also called Netcoin so it just seems to make sense that Netcoin should be the first coin to come with a social network as part of the package. The only way to join the social network would be to have Netcoins.

Each member of the network would need a Netcoin address and would have to deposit a certain amount into the social network. The social network could be the public face of the Netcoin syndicate. On the social network site individuals will be able to buy software and products. On the backend would be an SQL or superior database, with search capabilities, the capabilities of analysis. On the business end there would be the ability of individuals on the social network to buy shares in various Netcoin businesses, form a web of trust based on friendships and personal relations, etc. At the same time it would be a good idea to not just have a Netcoin specific social network but also bring it onto Facebook somehow.

At some point it's going to be essential that social networks become part of the equation. Forums are not the place to do business, or to set up businesses. Social networking sites are much better for these purposes. If for instance a bunch of investors all members of the syndicate decide to form a group on the social network site then investors in that group can focus just on that specific problem. Build the exchanges into the social network as well where if the user has an account with the social network then they can use that account on different exchanges.

But this is not exactly something I'm in a position to implement. I'm an idea guy but I do not have the funds to implement this, it would be something I think would have to be implemented prior to the launch though so that near the launch the social network site can go live. Immediately after the launch when individuals have Netcoins then just charge a membership fee in Netcoins and that will fund the social network until there are enough businesses and users for advertising to fund it.

I think this is a great suggestion.  Would love to hear more from a technical aspect, as to how feasible this is in the implementation of a coin system such as this. 

I posted this over at the Platinum reserves forum, but thought it may get more traction here. It's about colored coins and dividing coins, as well as the issue that some people (including myself) have about a currency that, once popular, needs to ensure that the average person can understand how its divisible:

_________
I think the biggest bane of Bitcoin and other altcoins is the focus on the whole coin or Satoshi.

I think that everyday adoption of cryptocurrencies will be hard as long as we're looking at trading a whole coin to hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of USD.

Comparatively, offering trillions of coins out there to ensure everyone has a whole coin may prove difficult to adopt, as the coin will be essentially worthless, with insanely large blocks, or incredibly fast blocks.

I really like the idea of colored coins. I think a huge focus of Netcoin needs to be in how we handle denominations. Instead of having a whole level (a single Netcoin) and a significant level of division (Satoshi), it'd make more sense to numerate in colors or properties, much like how in-game digital currency is held (example: World of Warcraft)

For example, in World of Warcraft, an advanced player may have hundreds of millions of coins on them at a given time, yet start out with one. Because there are three levels and colors of coins, it is easy to convert and understand the worth of each type of coin (gold, silver and bronze).

Likewise, there could be coins of various colors, that entail the value of a specific division of coinage.

For example, the highest value would be of those created when a block is found via PoS or PoW. Lets say its a grey coin. From there on, each hundredths' place is a new color coin.

I think it'd be very easy for people in the mainstream to understand. So if coinage ever becomes so valuable that 1 full Netcoin is equivalent to a million dollars, it doesn't matter, because one yellow Netcoin is worth $10,000, while a blue Netcoin is $100 dollars, and the green Netcoin is just $1. This way, its easy translate values of a coin, its properties, and network, without getting into the millionths' or billionths' place of a coin. This way, one can leverage the divisibility without the jargon of satoshis.

That way, you can have a small number of whole Netcoins be produced - say 10 million - but still have the intrinsic ability to divide the coin into 10 quadrillion base coins very easily, and a public that can understand each color's value in trades and transactions.

____

Hopefully this is an idea that can be considered. I think it would be revolutionary, and deal with some fundamental issues with divisibility. Network transactions and the like wouldn't have to really discern between the colors, but the public could easily know the types and values through the various wallet UIs.

In other words, anywhere between right now and when the sun burns up. Roughly.

Seriously, you'll know in due time.

.b

What's the estimated date of launch for netcoin? Rough estimate even

I want to get in touch with Meni Rosenfeld about his ideas on a hopping-proof method, which was touched on briefly here. I also want to get in touch with coblee about the model they followed for Litecoin's release. I think there's a lot of good information to be had out of a what-why-how approach to these issues and what Netcoin can learn from them.

I added some information about democratic moderation to the main page, which I think captures the essence of what you added. I'm trying to mirror TacoTime's original words verbatim as much as I can, until he has some free time to tell me what I got wrong.

Great contribution! I think the what-why-how model works really well for what you've put up. I added some formatting for structure purposes to fill the blanks later. Really great stuff to read! Obviously we'd have to do a lot of editing to get the message right, but it's looking good so far.

Great. I began adding some pages. They are works in progress, so pardon the mess.

I hope this resource can achieve a broad scope useful to the entire altcoin community.

Hopefully this will contribute to Netcoin's intellectual credibility.

I'm not for/against what you've written, but want to add that pool ops can tell if a miner is using a botnet. The ethics involved in allowing such users to mine is dubious, at best.  There are many pool ops that allow this b/c they keep their pool hash up, block discovery up, and...you guessed it, fee revenue up. Even if a pool doesn't charge fees, a botnet typically provides enough hashrate to significantly reduce block-discovery time, therefore enticing other miners to register; increasing the odds of donations.

Looks good, this was much, much needed ... and will contribute to the muchness of NTC! 

This coin may be eligible for ETC funding:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ethicoin-is-coming-ethicoins-purpose-is-to-improve-the-condition-of-humanity-221375

Okay, so in regards to the discussion on syndicates, cabals, and other entities to control mining, let me throw something out there:

It would potentially make sense to do this in such a way as to heavily dissuade people from gaming the coin. As the value of the coin grows, the desire for malevolent mining may persist. What I mean by that is that with LTC, we see huge daily attacks of botnets every 12hrs, that add 1-2 or more GH to network traffic. Going after botnets will ensure that the system is less prone to 51% attacks (which I think could easily be done with some huge botnets if MC2/NTC is profitable).

So I think that it may behoove the coin to quasi-regulate pools and syndicates to ensure they aren't using botnets to mine with. I'm unsure how you could specifically regulate this, but I think it would be very important for the development of the coin.

Having said that, I am biased. I'm working on a very large GPU mining farm, and look forward to mining MC2. But I do think that if the system is truly ASIC-resistant, there will be huge incentives for botnets to commit a very large amount of power to the network, which isn't good for miners - farms, co-ops, syndicates, or individuals.