Topic: MC2: A cryptocurrency based on a hybrid PoW/PoS system - page 41. (Read 195184 times)

No I'm saying in order for Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies to flourish it has to have powerful rich people. If all the powerful rich people have dollars then Bitcoin will never survive. Yes a middle class is important but so are the millionaires who can lobby politicians and organize political parties. Don't forget that Bitcoin is heavily political, it's a peer to peer currency and just like Napster it could eventually face political opposition. That opposition will have a lot of dollars and political power and a large middle class will not save Bitcoin if no one in that large middle class has any networking, political power, or social power to protect the important projects.

So yeah I do think it's better to have a large middle class, in our society it's unrealistic to bring that about through Bitcoin. As far as how people work and the like, until you have enough millionaires and billionaires to change the nature of what it means to work, to monetize the entire Internet so that stuff we do online is considered work, a large global middle class is not going to be created from Bitcoin. I'm saying there isn't nearly enough infrastructure for cryptocurrencies and that in order to build that infrastructure a lot of people will have to be rich long before there will be a big middle global middle class if such a concept is even politically possible.

History is history and I don't deny it. But I also don't see any better way to do it. I'm saying nitpicking on who gets rich this early in the game is going to make you lose. It is very much like a lottery because it's still early in the game and the infrastructure doesn't exist to make it anything other than like a lottery. When you can work and be paid in Bitcoin then we will have a bigger middle class. When all your online activities earn you Bitcoin then we will have a larger middle class. But let's be realistic, Bitcoin is global and middle class in US dollars will be totally rich in countries in Africa and South America so talking about "middle class" as if everyone is from America is a moot concept right now. It should be about growing the infrastructure and filling niches. This means many different coins to fill different niches, it means very valuable commodity coins like Mincoin or Bitbar, it means technologically abstract coins like Namecoin, it means microtansaction coins like Litecoin and it means the standard bearing Bitcoin.
Explain what you mean by "easy". Are you talking about low difficulty? Because if it's hard it's not going to be very profitable. ASICs raise the difficulty and so it becomes hard and no longer profitable. CPU mining is easy but it's also no longer profitable. So basically mining is becoming as a whole not very profitable at least with Bitcoin which is fueling the pump and dump coins. My solution is to fill these niche markets with commodity coins, such as Mincoin or even more scarce which can function as both a commodity and a currency but more scarce commodity than currency so people are encouraged to buy, mind and collect many alt-coins.


That is what is happening now with Bitcoin. Mining shouldn't be necessary for the currency to be used. A currency which depends on people mining it is a flawed design. This is the flaw in Proof of Work. Maybe Proof of Stake or something better can resolve it. The purpose of mining is to defend against a 51% attack and strengthen the network. You want people to mine new coins? Fill the psychological niche.


So why not just make the coin 1:1 with the dollar so that there is no psychological block? I'm not against developing coins to fill this psychological niche but it's also a psychological niche to want to collect valuable scarce objects which gain in value over time. These are both psychological niche markets and neither are actually critical for a currency but both are important if you want mass adoption. I think making a coin 1:1 with the dollar means there would have to be many trillions of these coins just like there are many trillions of dollars. You're proposing quantitative easing. It hasn't made big businesses spend more, they still hoard but the buying power is lower for the middle class.

Basically your argument is like saying we need to make it more like the dollar or the pound because using the metric system is too foreign for most people. This isn't true in countries which aren't using dollars or pounds. This is an niche psychological argument and while I understand your argument it's really no different from my niche psychological argument for scarcity.


This in my opinion is not true. Prove me wrong. Show me a game or online RPG where there is excessive deflation which ruined the economy because I've only seen it ruined by excessive inflation. In MMORPGs with excessive deflation the items are really cheap but money is hard to get so you have to kill lots and lots and lots of monsters but that is the only difference. You psychologically don't feel as rich with 1000 coins in your pocket even if items in the game cost between 1 and 20 coins total. You'd rather have a million or a billion coins in your pocket to feel like you're rich but it doesn't make you any richer because your buying power is the same.

This is why the common person will probably never be able to save long enough for it to be worth that much nor would the common person probably even care. But it is important that the value of Bitcoins reach those insane heights not for the sake of the common person but for the sake of the Bitcoin community itself who isn't necessarily made up of common persons but of early adopters introducing something as new to the world as the Internet. Just as it was argued that the Internet shouldn't be taxed, it's not all that different to want Bitcoin to remain free and that means it should be valued as much as the free market allows. That could mean $100,000 a coin or 1 million a coin or more.

I wouldn't ask my family. I would simply create a new wallet when the time comes which has the Bitcoin amount on the left side and the value in USD on the right side. When they look on the right side and see $10,000 for 0.36 Bitcoins they aren't going to care about all that Bitcoin number stuff. All that'll need to know is the $10,000 in their wallet. It's the volatility which is the problem not the psychology. The fact that it can be $10,000 in their wallet today but $5000 or $1000 hours later. That in my opinion is the big problem preventing mass adoption.

I disagree. Why would I collect long term FTC or CNC when theres probably billions of them and one coin will never be worth $10,000 so unless I have millions or billions of coins it's not going to make sense. And also I don't see how having a 643,225,342 coins worth $10,000 is any different than having 1 coin or 0.36 coins. Neither are 1:1 to the dollar so neither make sense psychologically. It's just if you want the illusion of being rich then you'd rather have a large number next to the $10,000 in your wallet but to me I'm only concerned about the $10,000 becoming $50,000.
And with that you ruin any incentive for any long term collector types to want to collect them. Miners might benefit from having lots and lots of coins to sell, but without enough suckers to sell to then what? And really if everyone is already using Bitcoins and Bitcoins are worth $1000 each, where are you going to find these people? You'll be selling these coins in countries like Zimbabwe perhaps?


You're basically saying the coin should focus almost exclusively to the psychology of miners but miners already have Feathercoin and Chinacoin and Yet Another Coin and so many coins already which are doing exactly what you propose. What coin do coin collectors have to choose from? Mincoin or BTC, maybe PPC. Different psychological niches have to be considered.

IMO, making the coin excessively deflationary is going to cause another coin to come along and destroy it in the distant future.

If MC2/Netcoin really wants to be evolutionary, it needs to get past the idea that only 20, 40, or 60 million coins need to exist, or else it won't be successful.

I'm not saying there needs to be trillions upon trillions of coins. But I do think that if we saw a coin gain commercial, mass adoption, there needs to be enough coinage to cover buying and selling, and not be close to the satoshi level.

Satoshis are going to be the bane of commercial adoption. As others have said, people will have a mental block on it when they could either trade 0.00000000000001 coin for a loaf of bread, or 1 coin for a loaf of bread, assuming both coin merits are the same.

As others have said, excessive deflation is just as bad as excessive inflation. What happens when I can't buy something with a satoshi because its worth more than what I need to survive? The coin needs to target a serious value at the tens and hundredths' level.

Having the coin eventually reach $70,000+ per coin is not desirable for the common person. Do understand that the common person isn't as smart as someone here talking on Bitcointalk.org. Please, go ask your family what they'd think about owning 1/100000th of a unit of currency, and that being enough to pay for their rent.

Personally, as a miner, having this conversation rather scares me that we could be looking at a very rare coin. Even though FTC and CNC look like pump and dumps, I think they show how valuable currencies are that have significant coinage: People will rapidly adopt a coin with big numbers. Again, it may be psychological, but Netcoin needs to leverage that, not dissuade it.

In my personal opinion, the coin needs to inflate via a logarithm. That is, the output doubles for every 10-fold increase in power. That would provide enough incentives for miners to keep adopting, while insuring that supply does not get hyperinflated. Additionally, we know that there is probably 25-30 GH of GPU mining that could adopt the coin, using current altcoin data + some Bitcoin extrapolation. That should be used as a good benchmark to decide how many coins to create. For example, the target could be 100 coins/block at 20GH of network capacity, and 200 coins/block at 200GH capacity. That way, the coinage inflates slightly, as we would know and understand that a network capacity of 200 GH would underline the fact that the coin has seen significant adoption.

You keep persistently interpreting my words to mean something I did not intend. I'm assuming it's merely an error of communication, but it's making this conversation difficult.

True equality DOES exist in theory. And it does NOT exist in reality, also correct. And who was even talking about that? I'm talking about whether or not a currency should be designed to make it difficult for individuals or small groups to amass a position large enough to influence the price and application of the currency in the long term. I agree, communism isn't practical and it doesn't work out. Again, where did that even come from? Capitalism has been demonstrated to work when it's allowed to do so, although I'm not aware of any such system currently being applied anywhere at the moment on any large scale. But again, what are we even talking about. This is about a CURRENCY, not a market, not a political system. I DO agree that "allowing for opportunities, allowing many people who were never rich to get rich is an improvement over the current form of capitalism we have". Although, I believe that, instead of creating a new class of wealthy people, it's much more important to create a large dominating demographic of MIDDLE class citizens. Small business owners, skilled workers, etc.

Yes, investing your money includes speculation. In fact, ANY investment is speculation, to some degree or another. Who cares if people are speculating in bitcoin? More power to them. Hope they do well for themselves. As for getting a job, get a job that pays you in dollars, and convert the ones you don't use for your immediate bills to coin x that you like. And you don't need rich investors to start a business. Ray Kroc started his business with a hot dog stand. In case you don't know who he is, he founded mcdonalds.

Here's what it looks like you're saying. It sounds like you're under the impression that in order for a currency or economy to flourish, it must be driven by a group or individual that wields significant power within it. That is incorrect. The american economy was, for decades, driven by small businesses and farmers. If you examine the history of the United States, you'll find that during any period where the economy was dominated by large businesses and the incredibly wealthy, sure, those businesses and wealthy people did very well for themselves, but the rest of the economy tended to, at the very least, slow down in growth, and usually either stagnate or shrink, creating large masses of unemployed and impoverished members of the society.

Look. All I'm saying is drag the useful mining of the currency out as long as possible. Mining the coins is one of the biggest draws for new people to start participating, along with general speculation in the exchanges. The early miners should make their big bucks, not because they got in when the mining was PROFITABLE, but because they got in when mining was EASY. When mining becomes not profitable at all, or only profitable with expensive dedicated equipment, the increase in the number of people using the currency will slow, if not stop completely. You never want the flow of incoming adopters to slow. You want it to grow.

But true equality only exists in theory and has never been practical. Communism was never practical which is why it didn't work out too well. Capitalism also is not practical. I accept that true equality will not exist because it's like hoping for perfect symmetry in a changing environment which constantly makes it harder to maintain it. Instead I think allowing for opportunities, allowing many people who were never rich to get rich is an improvement over the current form of capitalism we have where only celebrities get rich and even then it's probably not entirely based on merit.
Meritocracy is a nice ideal, but I'm more practical and think it's good enough just to have a consistent changing of the guard whether it's done by merit, luck, randomly or not, it doesn't matter. New people have to become rich by whatever means works at the time and at this time the most opportunity is in cryptocurrencies. Just like in the past it was in the Internet and in the PC.

Investing your money wisely includes speculating. That is how the majority of people are making money in Bitcoin. Get a job (what jobs will exist if we don't have rich people who have billions to fuel the job growth?), start a business? How do you start a business if there aren't rich investors? No matter how you look at it, we need some people to become rich to grow the industry. There wont be any money for Bitcoin businesses or for Bitcoin jobs if there are no Bitcoin billionaires. Any other way relies entirely on the generosity and agenda of banks.

I'm saying we need millionaires or billionaires and that we don't have the time to build a perfect meritocracy to generate them. I think honestly the most fair way to do it at this time is to just have random people become millionaires or billionaires so that it feels like a lottery because that will get the maximum amount of people to buy Bitcoins and get involved on the superficial level. Most wont become rich, but most will make a nice profit and learn a lot about cryptocurrencies along the way and this is what I want.
This I agree with you on. I think mining is becoming too expensive and is not distributed enough. I do think there should be elites in terms of how many coins you have, but I think with most cryptocurrencies that isnt an issue because if you look at how most of the coins are distributed in most of the currencies the vast majority aren't elite holders with hundreds of thousands in coins in any cryptocurrency. SHA256 based mining is a completely different story as you cannot make any profit at all without ASICs and only the elite have ASICS. So I agree we have to make it so anyone can profit. In Bitcoin you can profit even if you get in late, but in mining you actually lose money if you get in late and it's not even under your control, that is the problem with it.

I agree with you that premined coins are a problem. I agree that occasional shakeups are good. I agree in theory that a meritocracy is desirable.  But I don't think generating a billion coins solves any of these problems. I don't think we need more than 21 million and still think 11 million is a number to aim for. I do think that the main concern should be growing the industry itself, and benefiting the community as a whole, and if some individual members get lucky and become rich, at least a portion of them will be in the position to fund and invest in many different businesses which benefits us all in the form of potential jobs or just useful utilities. So what I'm saying is even if a person gets Bitcoin rich and becomes a billionaire on pure luck, that person can still and probably will still invest in alt currencies or in the infrastructure etc. That person will now be in a position to start many businesses, provide many jobs, and make more people rich. I see it as a process or sequence where the old guard of Bitcoin makes the Litecoin early adopters rich based on the fact that the Bitcoin old guard built the infrastructure which Litecoin rides on, and the Litecoin old guard will make the next series of cryptocoin holders richer, and so on. It also makes fundraising much easier.

That said I absolutely do support the idea of a perfect meritocracy, or of a coin where wealth generates more evenly for all holders, but I think in order to get to that point we are going to have to make many people rich in the process. The infrastructure costs money to build, businesses cost money to start, jobs cost money, and the people who will have the most incentive to build and pay for that will be people who got rich from Bitcoin.

you're operating on an incorrect assumption. I'm not saying that no one should win. I'm saying that if someone wins, it shouldn't be purely as a function of when they started operating in a specific currency. The currency itself should be equal and level, nothing more than a way of MEASURING your success.. The success itself should be a function of what you do to achieve that success. Get a good job, start a business, invest your money wisely, things of that nature. I'm not saying that there should be an equal distribution of wealth at the beginning, or that everyone should get x coins when they first start using them. I'm saying that early miners shouldn't be billionaires or even millionaires simply because they started before everyone else. Sure, incentive is fine. They'll have MORE money than other people who came in later. That's fine. But when it gets to the point that you need $3000 worth of equipment to mine $10 of coins a day, and the people who got in early are just sitting there with their PoS income and LIVING off of it, that's not healthy for the currency or any economy that is running on it.

And true, most crypto currenceis SHARE certain characteristics with ponzi schemes, but that doesn't make them ponzi schemes any more than having fur and teeth and a tail makes a dog a cat. In order to be a ponzi scheme, a system has to operate with an eventual group of people at the very end who are left with nothing. I'm not saying that's the case, I'm merely protesting the pushing out of the lions share of the wealth during the period when there aren't many people in the system, and then leaving the latecomer peasants to fight amongst themselves for the leftovers.

So people now can learn new ways of viewing currency. I don't see what is so wrong with that. When the WWW and Internet came along a lot of people had to learn a lot in order to use it but somehow we managed. We will manage, and if people need to get training let them pay for it in Bitcoins or write an app. The people who really want or who really need these coins have no problem dealing with this. I could write an app for myself to calculate this is I had to, and so could a million others like me, and it could easily be built into the web itself via the W3C such as Payswarm. Honestly, I don't think we should be concerned with this as a problem because by the time Netcoin arrives this problem will either be solved or people will already have learned to think in Bitcoin.

This is a toxic meme that you're generating for the purpose of portraying Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies as a Ponzi scheme(Ponzi meme). It's within the nature of capitalism to have people get rich. If some people are going to get rich why shouldn't it be people we know? People from our community? People who share our values and principles? The people associated with Bitcoin right now want to get rich just like anyone in any industry. People don't work real hard for free, that is slavery and I don't support that. I support the financial liberation of the Bitcoin community and making as many smart people rich as is necessary to make Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies a success.

When the Internet was booming and people were getting rich I didn't hear this kind of preaching about the Internet being a Ponzi scheme, or about how people on the Internet are only making websites in hopes to get rich and ride the Dot Com bubble. Were we this critical of Bill Gates? Steve Jobs or the lucky few who got rich in previous eras under similar circumstances?


It's good for any currency if people believe they can get rich. The only reason capitalism was so much of a success over communism, or that the USA was such a success, is because people believed in the American dream, the streets of gold, and a lot of other BS which was used to convince immigrants to come to the USA. The people who were already here for hundreds of years got "first adopter" benefits, got to own slaves to build fortunes, got land when land was very cheap and so on. The situation with cryptocurrencies is actually a standard gold rush and it's nothing different from what has happened in the past. This era should be described as the digital gold rush era. The last era was the dot com era.
So what you're saying is that some people win and you're mad and so you want to change cryptocurrencies so no one wins and everyone is relatively equal? But like I said before, if no one wins, even if everyone uses it, no one wins. I'd rather see people win even if it's not me.

And why is this bad? There will be many different coins with different properties, some rare, some not rare. You don't want any possibility for anyone to get lucky and be rich? But every industry was like that. Oil, gold, the personal computer, dot coms, it's all about who got there first. Many other businesses may have had better code, better plans, better designs, but they didn't get to the oil first, they didn't get to the gold first, they didn't built it (whatever it is) first. Like I said I'd rather a world where we have some winners, than a world where no one can win because it's all flat.

Socialism is fine, I don't mind if you introduce a coin which redistributes later down the line or which has a way to open things up at certain times so that there are enough opportunities for multiple generations. I do however think it's a mistake to not include opportunities for everyone and that includes the opportunity to get rich. Some people are going to get rich, some may even become very rich, and I'm not against this idea in theory.

I do understand your argument, that the Bitcoin elite or cryptocurrency elite may go on to become just like the old money elite but there is a huge difference. The old money elite is elite from inherited wealth and do not have to ever do anything.

The Bitcoin or cryptocurrency elite had to do a lot to get there and while some people might just get lucky and have stumbled upon Bitcoin at the right time, the vast majority of people have been following cryptocurrencies, cryptography, technology and certain subjects for many years and knew that at some point a cryptocurrency was going to happen because it was theoretically possible. If the worst that could happen is Satoshi, and some others become billionaires, I don't see it as a problem when you have celebrities in Hollywood becoming millionaires. I don't see it as a problem because for the vast majority of people who become rich from Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies, they were not born rich and that is a major difference. It also means that if some of them do become rich it will open up many doors and opportunities and grow the industry, how is this exactly a bad thing?

I like the colored coins feature.

Will the client ensure or have an option not to mix colored coins with the regular netcoins?

Or how is that intended to work?

What about the possibility that the originating address of a colored coin can created addtional coins later on?

There could therefore be two options in a colored coin as defined in the genesis block:
a.) an upper limit
b.) unlimited

More details on my suggestions here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/idea-coloredcoin-two-dimensional-bitcoin-166920

I said that a no cap coin could be successful. I didn't call for a massively inflationary coin. You can look at inflation in two ways. There's the overall number of currency units, and there's the number of currency units per person using the currency. As long as the number of grows slower than the number of currency users, you have an increase in the overall money supply but a decrease per capita.

Here's the thing lots of people don't grasp. Excessive DEFLATION can be just as bad as excessive inflation. An economy needs the money to move around, be passed from person to person. The more this happens, the more an economy tends to grow. If your money goes up in value just from you holding it, you're less likely to spend it on something. The Great Depression in the U.S. during the '30s was a result of deflation. There wasn't enough money to go around, and so lots of people didn't have any.

And that's the crux of it. Yeah, sure, you can make a currency divisible up to x units, however many you want that too be.  And in the pure mathematical theory of it, yeah, sure, that could totally work, even on a worldwide scale. The problem you run into with that is that people are trained to view fractions of the base currency unit as being not worth much at all. Because, almost universally, they aren't. I can buy a gumball with a quarter. I'm not aware of anything I can buy with a dime, nickel, or penny.

Over the last week or however long that I've been reading and posting in this thread, I've been getting a very distinct vibe along the lines of "we're gonna get in first, and we'll be rich. And then all the other people can go screw themselves. And while they're doing that, they'll also use this currency, because it's so awesome. While they're off screwing themselves"

That sounds amazingly like what I would expect major banks to say, except about quantitative easing aka government/tax funded bailouts instead of about getting there first.

Also, and this is what really bothers me, if there's a small number of coins overall, it's a lot easier for an enthusiastic early adopter to grab a huge amount of them, and then walk in front of a bus while he congratulates himself on how awesome he is. At this stage in the game, it's fairly unlikely that anyone who knows what crypto currency is will find his wallet, so, hey, there goes 30 percent of the money supply

Inflationary vs Deflationary arguments:

The psychology argument for unlimited inflation is that if we make everyone feel like millionaires or billionaires when they really aren't, they'll spend more. This may be true in psychology but this is also the cause of debt. Credit helps people feel like millionaires when they are not, people borrow money to feel like they have money they don't actually have so that they'll spend money they cannot afford to spend. This produces a credit society and debt slavery which I'm vehemently against.

The psychology argument for deflation is that everyone feels poorer, but at the same time money is a lot more precious, a lot less wasteful spending, a lot less credit. Yes it is true the size of the GDP may be smaller in this scenario but the actual health of the economy is much better as if anyone really wants to go to college, or buy a house, or buy something, it becomes realistic that people can save for a while and buy it.

The difference is under inflation people buy on credit. Buying on credit introduces the possibility of long term debt. People are also more likely to take and receive loans because theres so much cheap money floating around. But there aren't enough jobs for people to pay those loans back and theres actually too much money in the system for too little value.

My views:
I think a good idea mentioned by Tacotime is to make it deflationary for 30 years and then put a very low inflation. This could actually work well if it were done as some kind of Proof of Stake. Miners have to make money, and some inflation if it's very limited isn't so bad. The problem is when we open the door to that we can end up with out of control inflation. This is something I would hope can be voted on in some way.

As far Netcoin must have a value greater than Bitcoin? Okay look at Chinacoin and Feathercoin, these two coins have in my opinion messed up the alt-coin market by greatly inflating the total amount of coins. What I'm saying is let's say I decide to create a coin tomorrow which has 100 trillion total coins and which produces a trillion new coins a year. This way everyone mining it feels rich, and let's say people are stupid enough to trade their Bitcoins in for these mass produced coins. After 6 months to a year of this when the bobble pops these people are going to find out that these coins are totally worthless because the value of these coins in relation to the dollar is going to drop when enough people have these coins.

So my argument in favor of deflation is not to say that deflationary policy has to last FOREVER, but that this coin has to compete with other coins and it has to be of greater value than the US dollar., In specific cryptocurrencies in general should limit their total inflationary output (meaning the total amount of cryptocoins being created including all alt coins and mainstream coins) has to be reigned in because the psychological effect I'm seeing is people are reaching conclusions that the alt coins are worthless due to losing money on Feathercoins, Chinacoin and many pump and dump scam coins which offer no technological advance other than theres a lot of them produced very quickly and sold for a very high price. This wealth transfer benefits whoever happened to mine these coins but these coins don't offer any innovation which benefits anything long term. Inflationary pump and dump coins produce short term profits while deflationary coins produce long term profits.

Both types of coins are going to make early adopters rich, but I think part of the success of Bitcoin is you can look at it now and you can know if it reaches 0.5-1% of the global economy it's going to be worth $70,000-100,000 each coin. This is actually desirable, what I'm saying is it's a good thing for Netcoin if those people who hold it are encouraged to hold it for years in hopes that each Netcoin could be worth millions. This turns people into long term stake holders and proof of stake encourages this even further. If Netcoin produced 11 million instead of 21 million then we would know that at some point if it's technology really is better than Bitcoin it's going to go head to head with Bitcoin. It's not going to aim for 2nd place like Litecoin, but instead aim for 1st place.

What I'm saying is you're not going to have any long term holders of a coin like Feathercoin, Chinacoin, or any of those coins with billions of coins being created or trillions of coins being created because there is no incentive to save these coins. And as far as spending goes, you don't have to give people an incentive to spend money. When the infrastructure exists to make it easy for people to get exactly what they want the moment they want it with these coins then people will start spending them.

We don't need to have a billion coins and be tricked into feeling rich when we can have millions of coins and actually live rich. The dollar already has trillions, and there will be no reason why we should make it cheap for billionaires and millionaires to buy into these reserved slots. 11 million coins will make it twice as expensive to buy into these reserved slots as before which would mean you'd still have the potential that some billionaire could buy a bunch of coins while they are cheap, but I don't see why we should make that easy. I see it where you have a limited supply you have limited slots,  just like not everyone can have a billion dollars, and no one has a trillion dollars,  not everyone should have a Bitcoin or a Netcoin. If we let everyone have one then the value of each wont be as high because a millionaire isn't going to pay a million dollars a coin when we'll give him a coin for 10 cent.

These opinions are mine only, anyone is free to disagree and now is the time to debate. I've made my position known, I do not support the Chinacoin/Feathercoin/Litecoin (cheapcoin) model. I support the idea of diversity where you have some cheap coins for certain purposes such as pump and dump but then you have some coins where we might want to save them for 10 years because they are so rare, and then some coins which are in the middle. Bitcoin is the center of the bellcurve and is the normal coin and normal is 21 million. Rare would be less than 21 million, and inflationary would be more than 21 million and despite the sentiments of others on this forum when I see a coin based on Litecoin with greater than 21 million total, the higher the total number of coins and the faster the generation of these coins the less likely I am to buy them and the more likely I am to see it as a pure speculation sport coin for pump and dumps or a coin so miners who premined or who got in early can make a quick profit.

Agreed. I see "netcoin", "mc2" and "digital distribution reserve" being bandied about for this coin. IMO, best to go with one simple term that is new and use that. I personally like NetCoin. It's simple, easy to say, and gets the job done.

The concept looks good but let's see how it will be in practice.

Regarding the logo, it might not be appropriate to start logo designs before the name is finalized. It could end up wasting a lot of people's time. Regarding the name...

I agree that the name is a very important part of differentiating this project from all of the other alt coins. Very shortly people will be frustrated with alternate cryptos because of pump and dumps so we need to proactively prevent that. One of the main ways we can do that is by making the name look and sound different from the others. Some might dismiss the importance of the name, but people will be speaking and typing it millions of times. it will clearly effect the users impression of the client. Just ask Pee Pee Coin users.

 In addition to distinguishing itself a properly branded name can have several fold meanings which can be used to increase keyword hit rate via search engines and increase exposure. One discussion we had in crypto.cat about Digital Distributed Reserve is that it would be abbreviated as DDR. While obviously this is a popular yet IMO crappy game, however the company has spent many thousands if not millions of dollars marketing for the term DDR. The result of this for example if named DDR would be that every time some one searched for the game DDR, they would also be exposed to this client, basically riding the wave of corporate advertising for free.

IMO "Netcoin" is not only WAY too generic, it also has a direct association with every other altcoin ever created. This is a different system, the name should reflect that. First impressions are important. An additional name I had to add to the list is "Distributed Metaregulated Reserve". While I did not find any direct DMR references of much notoriety, I feel this name communicates more clearly what the system is intended for drawing attention to the fact that it is unique, the primary indicator of an altcoin's future potential.

+1

There is a thread on the official forum
http://platinumdigitalreserve.com/forum/index.php?topic=4.0

Hi designers,

Please create a new thread to discuss about logo design. You are making this thread a mess. This thread should be used to discuss the technical side of the coin only

The original is better man

Tried these colours, even though it may be quite symbolic I don't think it works too well http://puu.sh/2P5Iu.png

I don't disagree with your calculations. In fact, they accomplish just what I want. We don't want the same things (you prefer work; I prefer stake; you think energy use is okay; I think it is a big waste).

Edit: However, I thought about it a bit more and decided it is not worth making a fuss over. Here are approximate percentages on attack resistance (this is for permanent 51% attacks, not lucky streaks from minority attackers; majority voting performs better against lucky streaks).

4 out of 7 majority voting: (99.95% work 5% stake; 99.5% work 10% stake ; 94.4% work 20% stake)
3 out of 5 majority voting: (99.90% work 5% stake; 99.1% work 10% stake ; 94.1% work 20% stake)

3 out of 3 unanimous voting: (99.985% work 5 % stake; 99.86% work 10% stake; 98.46% work 20% stake)
5 out of 5 unanimous voting: (99.99996% work 5% stake; 99.998% work 10% stake; 99.9% work 20% stake)

3 out of 5 majority voting is adequate when paired with a nonnegligible PoW block reward. I was fanatic for PoW protection because I wanted minimal energy use. I forgot about your big PoW rewards.

There is another issue I forgot, the waiting issue. To me it is no big deal, but I expect a huge fuss  from others. You should remove this weakness to avoid future problems.

You can always hoard coin-age by waiting (see numerous rants by killerstorm). To attack, you need 5% of stake-days, not 5% of stake. (e.g. so if you have x% of stake and bide your time for y voting cycles, then you can attack just like someone with xy% stake)


How about you buy most tickets with straight coins rather than coin-time? Coins are escrowed up until the tickets win or get invalidated. This approach sidesteps the waiting issue.

Sadly, it also excludes small holders from direct participation, though they could still use lottery pools, banks, etc. You have what ~ 60000 tickets. That is 160 coins a ticket if there are 10 million coins. A bit steep. To let small holders participate directly, perhaps allocate 10% of tickets based on coin-age and 90% based on straight coins. That would allow for some token grassroots participation. Honestly there will be a bulky blockchain to store. Smallholders would end up PoS mining via a banking system anyway. No point in designing a system that allows for infeasible use cases.

Question: When you purchase a ticket, could you then send the ticket key to a pool to manage for you (in exchange for a cut)? Or does transferring your ticket impose some risk? In my opinion, it would be good to attach some risk to letting other people mine for you (e.g. allow the ticket holder to steal the winnings). It would be bad to attack a huge risk to letting other people mine for you, (the principal used to purchase the ticket should be safe from theft).  This strikes a balance between discouraging centralization and encouraging participation in PoS mining.

Navy blue "N", bitcoin colored gradient stripes. "color coins" are an important mechanical property ... implementation of Netcoin.
Litecoin colored background, silver, and copper edge.

Beautiful ! I also really like the other one eventhough, yes, it does have a faint resemblance of a swastika.