I think freetrade had a vision of a totally new concept about 2 things 1 : a only with cpu mineble coin and 2 :a votinsystem to keep the coin alive without pre-mine.
this are 2 new concepts , so things can go wrong ,like being stabel and noteveryone get the point with the hole voting thing
but a lot of people talked a lot about this coin , there was something going on
so if we learn some things from it , we can say it was a good experiment
Topic: MemoryCoin - What did we learn? (Read 910 times)
another lesson:
You need patience for a cryptocoin to become mature and used by users. (long patience, like years)
You need patience for a cryptocoin to become mature and used by users. (long patience, like years)
My view is that's true for the first cryptocoin - but for altcoins, i think developers need to plan for rapid expansion, and if it isn't happening pivot, fork or restart. If an altcoin isn't growing rapidly, it's dying. There are so many altcoins just limping along - we'd be better served if they were killed off and the new coins created that build on the successful parts and remove the rest.
Here is a dead straight admission by FreeTrade that he "killed off" MemoryCoin...
By getting MEG delisted from bter... and QUITTING the 2nd time with a bunch of philosophical baloney.
He QUIT simply because he could not extort 20% of the coins via "Grants" (400,000 coins in total)...
And even with 30+% of the coins was apparently outvoted.. though no results were posted.
Even after 6 weeks, MemoryCoin was not properly debugged...
Getting stuck of blocks and creating confusion for miners and bter...
So bter probably got tired of rebuilding blockchains with no end in sight.
FreeTrade is now working hard to obscure his trail... so no one knows WTF really happened...
He deleted most of my previous posts to obscure his malfeasance...
But this post will ALWAYS be the Smoking Gun anyone can refer to...
When he comes back in a few weeks with the same con about Saving The World.
We learned nothing about voting, because MemoryCoin was a tyrrany.
There was not a single free vote ever with your "Voting System"...
So it's not debugged, new, useful, anything... just complicated and boring.
Again, you take more CONDESCENDING SHOTS at the intelligence of your miners...
This is actually a very sophisticated forum where people deal with Scammers on a daily basis.
The "enlightened self-interest" of YOUR miners was mine/dump... mine/dump...
People acted accordingly due to the nature of your character = deception, quitter...
And the multiple inconsistencies between your Coin and voluminous Propaganda.
I'll give you 2 things, interesting new things about MEG:
(1) Experimentation with Memory-hard, GPU-resistant algos.
(2) The Tax/Grant/Distribution thing was incredibly badly implemented...
Probably to obscure the fact that it was really meant to siphon off 400,000 coins for FreeTrade...
You seem too well-versed to design something this badly...
But there's a germ of a great idea there.
Now you could do everyone a BIG favor... and pass the project to another Dev without delay.
another lesson:
You need patience for a cryptocoin to become mature and used by users. (long patience, like years)
You need patience for a cryptocoin to become mature and used by users. (long patience, like years)
My view is that's true for the first cryptocoin - but for altcoins, i think developers need to plan for rapid expansion, and if it isn't happening pivot, fork or restart. If an altcoin isn't growing rapidly, it's dying. There are so many altcoins just limping along - we'd be better served if they were killed off and the new coins created that build on the successful parts and remove the rest.
another lesson:
You need patience for a cryptocoin to become mature and used by users. (long patience, like years)
You need patience for a cryptocoin to become mature and used by users. (long patience, like years)
Also, what did you like about the results of the [Experiment] and what did you not like? (In thinking of your next coin) I had always thought CPU Only was a goal, but that seems hopeless with bots and EC2.
I think experiments are about what we learned, rather than what we liked.
1. We learned that the vote calculation code is robust. There's solid code there now for calculating the results of voting in the blockchain. If anyone has a use for proof of stake voting for any bitcoin based coin, they can simply announce a vote prefix '1MYVOTE' for example, create some voting addresses, solicit votes, and then run the code against the block chain to find out the result at a specific block number - no change to the code of the target coin required.
2. Voting does generate interest and participation - we had 80% voter participation at one point. I don't know how many people understood the concept of preferences or transferable vote but there was clearly enough understanding that people were voting for what they wanted.
3. Multiple grants requiring a low level of support don't work. This looks a bit naive to me now.
4. The single grant idea wasn't properly tested - the environment was poisonous by the time I launched it so that remains inconclusive. If MC continues we might see how that plays out.
5. Long hash times are definitely viable - that is positive for the future of YACoin type coins. There might be some stability issues to iron out with long hash times and multithreading, but they're definitely viable for a coin.
6. EC2 didn't become an issue. For a well designed CPU coin, the economics of it mean that commercial mining should not be a long term profitable venture.
7. Difficult to know if bots were an issue. From what I gathered, the largest holder was an individual who mined on three personal computers from the start.
8. For a new altcoin you can't rely on coin owners to act even in their own self-interest, let alone enlightened self-interest. There's a very low barrier to entry to be a miner. Higher barriers might be a help for a nascent coin.
Jump to: