Topic: Microcash.org says "Solidcoin" (Read 5106 times)

I guess for transfers and mining we're awaiting decontamination then

It already did. It came out of RealSolid's ass.   

is microcash coming out?

from the SCT board:


my response:


of course he did not respond to that part

it really is batshit retarded and is just another attempt to get the revenue stream going for RS and his cohorts

the "coin protection fund" has 5% of the total coins in existence (save the trust accounts) so it will be earning the vast majority of this microfee interest on top of it all. and there is no date of when the CPF will end or any direction for it either.

I'm wondering what the hell an 'account' is in the microcash context.
Does this mean one needs to have a defragged wallet with all coins controlled by a single private key in order to stop the smaller inputs from being whittled away to nothing?

Not that bitcoin is ideal for microtransactions  - but so far it sounds like microcash is very microtransaction unfriendly...  and heavily into taxing the poor.

Looks like both the 'micro' and 'cash' parts are misnomers.  wow.. and I thought soiledcoin was as tragically comical as it could get!

Of course not. You just have to include the date of issue as well as the depreciation rate with the denomination, eg:

ONE MicroCash Dollar
minus 0.5 cents per day since 1 June 2012
This MicroCash Coin will be worthless on 18 December 2012
Spend it quickly!

So uhh..  physical coins such as the Casascius coins are a no-go for this microcash thing eh?

Could be that exchange will stop accepting coins at let´s say 53,67%. Where the 3,67 depends on the size and number of other larger accounts, of cause. ... uhm why? The 3,67 is reducing profit but increasing safety.

The question is basically how many parachutes to grab. Could be it´s wise to take none and stay away from that plane in first place.

Yeah and thus making this whole principle worthless if everyone puts their MC "investment" into one exchange because then there will be no interest because there will likely be only one account.

LOL 

Interesting.

If I understand correctly, if an address has a greater-than-average amount of currency then it will get interest.

Paid for by all the accounts with a less-than-average amount of currency.

So there's an incentive for everybody to (try to) be above the average. That seems like a recipe for a lot of disappointed people, especially since a graph of size-of-account will have a long tail with of lots of little accounts.

Making a half-thought-out-prediction, I'd say the end result would likely be one big centralized account controlled by the largest exchange with over 50% of the currency in it, because there would be a natural incentive to store your money in the biggest account so you get the most interest...

MC is apparently heavily promoting a lite client. But the funny thing is, you don't get paid for having a full node, you just get paid for having a lot of coins. Since there is not necessarily any future correlation (I will admit there is a current one since like 10 people use SC), you are just getting paid by having coins.


They are switching to an account ledger rather than a transaction ledger as described in various places around the forums here. RS claimed on his forums that "he just thought it up." This means that accounts use up about 1/4th the space of a bitcoin transaction, and there is only 1 balance per address, so there is a significant reduction in the amount of data required to store any given address. This is somehow reasoning for charging a daily fee (in reality, it allows for the charging of a daily fee, so the RS group decided to take advantage of that).


Yeah I don't follow his logic at all there either.


God exists because the Bible tells me so.

Okay, let me make sure I have this right - As a potential participant in the MicroCash system, I have to pay for my computer capital, memory usage, cpu usage, network usage, and disk space usage - And MicroCash promises to tax me for this, so it can give it to others using the same (or potentially lower, as I'll address in a minute) level of resources but who happen to have a higher MSB set in their account balances?

I sincerely hope I have that very, very wrong, and you've left out something about these taxes funding a built-in exchange, or secure online wallet backups, or hell, even paying 3rd-party dev(s) and auditor(s) to improve and validate the system.



Okay, perhaps you've just touched on our failure to communicate here - How exactly does one use MicroCash without becoming a node?



The possible account-space for a modern cryptosystem comfortably exceeds the number of atoms in the universe by a factor of more than a google.  Given that they don't count as a scarce resource, that inactive accounts have no effect on either network or storage, and that disposable one-time-use accounts provide one of the bigger selling points of a cryptocurrency - What does this first point matter?

As for "cleanup spam", this tax seems like a bitdust attack built right into the system itself - How does MicroCash plan to get around the resulting problem of massive block fragmentation, and how does causing such fragmentation prevent the ensuing cleanup?  Or does the protocol have a significant enough change from existing BitCoin clones that "dust" no longer presents a problem (and if so, why do we need to pay to avoid it)?



Again, what infrastructure?  We (the users of the currency) provide all the necessary infrastructure, all the end-point computing resources, the entire raison-d'etre for any currency.  I don't see how charging us for our own contributions makes the network in any way "better".



But on day-1, only the large existing SolidCoin holders will have a balance on which to draw interest; this tax effectively gives them a reason not to spend their MicroCash, as they can continue to receive income without doing anything (including contributing "computer capital, memory usage, cpu usage, network usage and disk space usage" to the network).  They can just log in once and go offline forever, and rake it in over time.  How does that encourage new users of the system, to know that they get to pay a tax to others who can effectively retire on their now-idle "investment" capital?

At this point Microcash is probably just a wrapper for malware. Coinhunter will charge up some stolen credit cards and call it a day.

MicroCash: Taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

I have kind of a hard time believing that people in your inner circle like Ahimoth would get behind an economic scheme with such a design.

Fees get paid back proportionally to each account. So if you have 1% of the MicroCash (28000) you get 1% of daily fees (account and transaction). So the more MicroCash you have the higher the percentage of the fees you get. It doesn't necessarily reward early adopters, it rewards people who have MicroCash. I'd say anyone who has SolidCoin now or will mine MicroCash is still an early adopter as there are only around 1000 users of SolidCoin right now. Many people say if you're involved in Bitcoin right now you're an early adopter.

When MicroCash starts you will need around 50 MicroCash dollars to get interest. This doesn't include transaction fees, the more transactions there are the less MicroCash you need to get interest as all fees are collected up and distributed proportionally.

Basically to use MicroCash you have a fixed daily cost of $0.005 per account (or half a cent). Users will still get some reward back for even a small amount of MicroCash, so their daily cost will be less than 0.005 , completely depends on how much MCD they have. An example, if you had 1 MCD in an account you would get paid 0.0002 for that amount, so your daily fee is essentially 0.005 - 0.0002 .

If there are 2000 transactions a day , that is an extra ~15 MCD to be distributed to all accounts as well as all the account fees.

Operational costs are computer capital, memory usage, cpu usage, network usage and disk space usage. Nearly everyone around the world sets a price for these features (ie it's very difficult to find reliable hosting that is free). Because you can now securely use MicroCash without becoming a node you are essentially relying on the hundreds/thousands of computers around the world to do it for you. By putting a fee on this resource we can basically control to some extent the number of useless accounts created (that clog the nodes), prevent and cleanup spam and also now offer small amounts of interest back to the chain proportionally.

If anyone thinks half a cent per day is expensive then they shouldn't use MicroCash, use something that sets no price on something which actually costs something if they can, why not? I think by valuing something which costs something MicroCash can provide a better infrastructure and new services on top of it.

All fees are collected, account and transaction fees, and instead of giving them to the people who are rich in hardware (miners) they give it back to all MicroCash account holders proportionally based on the amount of MicroCash they have. Miners already get a lot, they are the only ones who can create new currency. So it's a different system, some say a better system as it rewards everyone invested in the currency vs only a few (the miners) for getting new users involved and doing more economic activity. As transactions increase (economic activity) everyone in the chain benefits.

If there are enough transactions per day then they will cancel out the account fee and everyone will earn "interest".

Sure he did:
See? The fees get paid to the people with the most money, ie, the developers and early adopters, while the late adopters lose all their money. What, you thought he was kidding when he said it was a pyramid scheme?

You, uh, still haven't answered my question about the nature of those fees and where they go on the short term.  You made a vague allusion to "operational costs", of which none exist that the entire network doesn't already share equally, no central taxing authority required.



Right, it doesn't - Because a "pyramid scheme" refers to a very specific, well-defined type of scam, rather than to your entry in the weekly bad-ASCII-art competition.

Bad enough we need to explain this over and over and over to the general public, without members of our own community deliberately misusing such terms to (attempt to) score political points.