Topic: [POT]PotCoin - Banking for the Legal Cannabis Industry ✦ ✦ ✦Grow With Us ✦ ✦ ✦ - page 198. (Read 920105 times)

Edit: Shoulda read more before opening my yap. But yeah, so was this put in there by potcoin or is it just in the source the potcoin wallet was built on? No matter how you look at it, the devs need to speak up on it.

Viceroy, are you part of the dev team?  I'm just wondering why the only reasonable explanation for the origin of the code is coming from you rather than the dev team.  If you are, thanks for clarifying at least some of this mystery.

However, to a skeptic like myself, adding bits of code like this during major code changes is like hiding laws in bills in the senate.  Everyone is so preoccupied with the major changes of digishield and halving that they didn't notice the precursor to a network wide tax.

Another point that kind of rubs me the wrong way though is your comment about the third party windows compilation.  Who compiles the windows client?  Is the dev team not capable of compiling a windows client internally?

-Fuse

Dean,

   I am chill.  The success or failure of POT is not going to affect me long term.  I'm invested in it, and have been since the beginning, but I'm not going to be a millionaire or lose my home if it shifts either way.

   That being said, I want it to succeed.  I think anyone in this thread can agree with that desire.

   However, I'm not seeing results.  I think a lot of people, yourself included, are blinded by the agenda.  Saying that POT is this great and powerful entity that is doing all these amazing things is kind of off-based.  The whole "never been done before" mantra that keeps popping up is driving me nuts.  People are right, it's never been done... and it still hasn't been done.  Until there are quantifiable results that exceed the hype, I'm going to play the pessimist card.  The business plan, or lack thereof(which you agree with), is the most troubling.  Why is there still not a list of merchants that accept POT?  I don't even know what the hell I can spend POT on.  If I come to this thread for instance, and I've never seen POT before, I would think it was a pump and dump coin.  Lots of pools and exchanges listed, but no mention of what services accept it.  How many people here know that Amagi Metals takes POT as a payment?  The only reason I know is because I frequent their site.  From an outsider's perspective, there is no clear thinking evident here... maybe too much smoke in the air.

   You ask why it's an issue that they collect more money via the fee when they already have the 588k POT in the wallet.  I don't think they should be paid if they aren't producing results.  Apple has billions because they sell billions.  As much as I loathe Apple marketing and products, they earned that money.  If POT becomes extremely successful, I will donate to the dev team again.  Them telling me I have to donate via a 2% fee is a whole other story.  That I have a problem with.

   Mate, my angst isn't towards you.  I'm just getting tired of the fluff.  To me the your post just seemed disjointed.  If that was your intention, as you pointed out, then I apologize for the point by point breakdown.

-Fuse

I forget which but a bit of code in either the original bitcoin wallet, or one of the early litecoin ports of it, had the "tax" and so it was adopted as an idea into the new wallet software which was being developed for potcoin (and orgcoin and others).  We thought it was odd when we first saw it too, that a tax was hardcoded right into the program and it was NOT commented out. We wondered about all the numbnuts who had just blindly compiled it without looking.  Let me reiterate this original open source code that the wallet was built upon had nothing to do with potcoin.

The "tax" was de-activated and was, as I said, left there for other purposes; namely to allow a licensing fee to be generated if that should become a necessary or desired feature.  And again, I am limiting this statement to the original code not the winblows derivative works.

The "foundation" is a non-profit Colorado corporation who would become the beneficiary of the licensing fee in the event the tax was turned on.  This really had more to do with Orgcoin than potcoin.  

Fuse --

Your parsing my words far to critically.  I said within this that everyone else is talking about adoption ... adoption is obviously slow. So lets look at the other side of the supply and demand equation --  I wanted to look at it differently.  

Additionally -- I never said any of this SHOULD be done ... it is all offered as observations and ideas.




I can agree business plan -> yet to be seen.  But if you look at the other coins out there POT seems to be trying to do the right things - that's my point. And Yes, there are a handful coins that have goals for being the next Bitcoin ... or even moreover better and bigger.  My point is that most coins have no goals other than to make devs money. I do not consider POT to be one of those coins.




We did not just decrease supply. We decreased the rate of future supply .... that is a different issue.  The current glut of coins is a component of the current price being low.




I know people are solely focused on adoption. No doubt adoption is a major weak link.  My point is that adoption by itself, even its its amazing ... will likely never use the coins in circulation.  Which in turn means the coins will likely never achieve a reasonable value





Why is that an issue? Sure -- if it goes to $1 .... I have no issue with  the "Foundation" (using your words) having $588K. The same as I don't have a problem with Apple having billions in cash.  They (POT) took all the risk and therefore can capitalize on the rewards - if/when there are rewards.  I am an investor and interested geek in an experiment.





Pricing in a free market always boils down to supply and demand.  Adoption is the major component of demand.  But in this case the supply is targeted to be way larger than virtually every other major player.  And unfortunately adoption will likely never be able to use the huge quantity of coins that are being mined. So -- you either accept that price will almost always be low ... or you find ways to pull coins out of the market, increase scarcity couple with stronger adoption this should increase price





Agree 100% .. was not suggesting a one time buy.  But pointing out that at current price levels it you could provide the support you mention without breaking the bank.





You are correct -- we don't know the specifics. And I am not fixated on 2% being the number.  I am simply providing one method I see that a fee of this type can work and actually be good for the entire blockchain and coin.  




Again your parsing ...  I am saying people who process big transactions over a specific threshold  "COULD" be taxed and by doing so COULD have a positive result.





Yes -- it does bounce back and forth.  Intentionally. Just because this is a crypto that is decentralized and is digital, does not mean the laws if supply and demand are tossed to the side. You can't consider supply without considering its connection to demand.

Fuse .. chill man.  

This is a lot of hostility and angst directed toward me for just putting some ideas and concepts out there.  Within this forum, I have been both critical of the POT folks and positive of the POT folks. I see possibilities, but am not blinded by the shiny object in front of my face.

The world is a very gray place ... very little is black and white. I try and be objective and open to all sides and see positive in all arguments -- even if I do not see things the same way.

Good grief... there is not one of you people bitchin about 2% that would do it all for free.

I think its fair to say that adoption is the weak link for every crypto currency, bitcoin included.

Its not so simple just to say that we need adoption. At this point we can all waste time arguing the supply and demand of the coin but ultimately it comes back to what you have been alluding to: A solid business plan and publicity.

Most people who would actually consider using Potcoin probably don't even know it exists. Right now we are a niche market inside of a niche market. Potheads who like crypto currency.

We all want adoption for the coin. It starts by first letting people know it exists. Participation in events, handing materials out, etc. You alluded to a number of these things and I think you've hit on the head.

Now back to the original point regarding the foundation address...IMO the legitimacy of this code depends entirely on what they intend to use it for. If they are using those coins to fund something that benefits the coin then great. Consider it an expenditure in their business model, which we have all bought stock in. But the question is what benefit? Not all are equal. Funding a legalization effort is great but lets be honest legalization is going to happen anyway. Potcoin funding will make no difference. There are better ways to use those coins. Use them to pay for ad space, leaflets,coin handouts at dispensaries, etc.

Are there plans for signs at this new office? It was announced and very little was said about it afterward. It seems like an excellent place to try and slap a Potcoin sign or something on the outside of the building. Use the 2% in coins to help pay for it. Handouts and working with dispensaries is nice but ultimately you need Potcoin to be seen by as many eyes as possible. Even if it doesn't stick with most of them. People should know what Potcoin is before they walk into a dispensary. That way they can ask about it inside, instead of being told about it inside for the first time. It puts pressure on dispensaries to consider the coin more seriously if people already know about it.

This is so true...as a pool op I recall going as far as quickly reviewing the code (most don't); seeing that part and thinking "that's odd" but noticed it was commented out. I moved on since I was in a rush to compile.

What business plan?  They went to the 420 event to get high and hang out.  Having a true plan would have meant they would have been dressed professionally and had media kits to hand out to vendors.

And this whole approach isn't rare... it's the goal.  Create a currency and have a legitimate use for it.  Fuck, man... take a look at NLG and see what they've succeeded in doing in half the time of POT.  POT has been around for how long now, and it's still working on the broken promise that it will be the industry standard.  There is one dispensary taking the coin, but they aren't even taking it for POT.  Hell, I even asked if there was any incentive to take POT at the dispensary on the 28th, and what happens on the 29th, they offer a 10% discount on merch.  I'm not saying I was the reason for that, but rather that should have been thought of from the get-go.  There is no planning...


We just decreased supply, or did you forget what has been going on for the last month?  Do we really need to decrease supply even more?


Actually, the people here have been talking about adoption.  I just mentioned it.  Hell the dev even said that the reason that they wanted the halving was that there was too many coins and not enough use for them.  I think people have considered adoption as the weak link in the chain for this coin for a long time.


1POT:1$ would mean that the "Foundation" has $588k in the donation wallet.  I don't think they need more unless things seriously start to change with the adoption.


Wrong.  In the end, it's adoption.  You're contradicting yourself now.  Make up your mind, mate.


Again... this should have been in the "business plan".  Right now the only plan is "Use POT to buy stuff".

I support ASICs backing the blockchain.  DOGE has a good plan in this respect.

As far as buying POT goes, sure... spend the $4000 on the POT to buy everything on the market.  But what happens after that?  You need constant pressure on the market.  TAG was able to keep the floor at a specific price because the millionaire owner of the coin was keeping it up.  He was actively buying TAG constantly, and still is.  But you need the revenue to do that.


A transaction fee is minimal.  What is it, 0.001-0.01?  And in the end the fees go to the miners that make the transactions happen.  A 2% fee on top of that is absurd.  Until verified, it's not on transactions over a specific threshold, it's a on all blocks.

And again, you're not making sense.  You say that the "foundation" should create a pool or buy up the pot on exchanges.  Then you say big pools and people who manipulate price should be taxed.  So you tax the taxer?  In programming terms, you just found a memory leak.


And you're back to adoption.  Man, Dean... that was a rollercoaster.

-Fuse

I am not going to defend the DEVS -- but I will offer a different perspective.


POT is not just another flash in the pan coin that will be gone in a few months. Its a real team, with a business plan and focus on bricks and mortar usage. This is a VERY unique and unusual thing in the crypto world (most are created by devs whose entire purpose in to pump and dump and walk away) With the zillion other cryptos out there, you can't achieve adoption without focus and business like mentality.

Yes, I agree -- this entire discussion is the equivalent of a premine after the fact -- but with so many in circulation, decreasing supply is not a bad thing.

Coins are a commodity. Real companies that drill for oil or mine gold, do all they can do to manage and hedge the price. And do what ever they can do to make more money.  We all would like to see POT at a higher price and we all would like to see more adoption -- I believe adoption and price are connected much tighter than most consider. 

Meaning -- if POT was valued at even $1 USD... the payment structure simplifies and it takes fewer fragmented transactions to actually purchase something, which means easier processing for vendors and customers. Moreover, perception changes.  POT would be seen as viable ...  1-to-1 for real dollars and usable for real transactions.

In the end its supply n demand.  Right now there is too much supply.  Most people here only focus on on the demand side- so lets talk on the supply side. I think you have to ask yourself the question --- "If this was my business and I wanted to manage and control supply - how do I accomplish that?"

1)  POT run or managed POOL - lots of configurations here are a couple - could be a multipool that mines other coins and pays out in POT -- could be a pool with high hashpower that just mines POT for the "company"  In any case it has the opportunity to take coins out of circulation -- decreasing supply.

2)  Buy POT directly from the exchanges to support/increase price.  At the time of this writing -- I could have bought 100% of the volume from Cryptsy for 6.4 BTC -- around $4000 USD  -- its not a huge market. Not that it would make sense but if someone did buy 6.4 BTC -- where would the price be?  If my math is right, that's over 600K coins  and in any case -- it would decrease supply.

3)  Trade POT on the key exchanges ( in the trading world this could be akin to market making )  This activity by itself should stabilize the price and flatten the peaks and valleys. It happens all the time in equity, FOREX and futures markets.

4)  Remember, cryptos almost always carry a "network transaction fee" for sending it around network. So, in concept this is not a new thing.  I am not sure the exact usage of the above stated "tax" but consider this -- an additional fee that is assigned for transaction above a certain threshold, XXX BTC would only impact big pools and pumpers/dumpers that are manipulating the price by buying and selling large volumes. This would cause them to either pay the "tax" of make smaller trades on the exchanges -- smaller trades would be eaten up by the general market and price would swing less.  And if they choose to make the big transactions, rather than fight it directly ,,,, make money from it.


Unfortunately -- we here are the geeks (I am part of this group and freely admit it); people in the early adopter bleeding edge of this movement. As a result we nitpick and over think every movement and twitch and in the world of always on, the lack of movement is perceived negatively. 

The average person does not care and never will - they want function.  How many people really care about PayPal fees?  Customers don't because in the end, it just works. This movement, legalization, POT -- its not about the geeks (the minority) -- its about the majority. The majority will make this successful and thrive. That majority just want it to work.

...presuming folks were required to view the source code before using it, or that they do. Most folks, even pool ops, just hurry up and compile to keep their systems from accumulating downtime. There have been numerous opensource exploits not caught until after damage has been done. While this wasn't implemented, it's very odd to not have some description there.

Look at it this way, nobody to date has caught it. Imagine how many hundreds of thousands of potcoin could've been skimmed/stolen? Only 1 individual out of the userbase noticed this? Your point is wholly negated.


"Contribute" usually carries with it the idea that it was voluntary and of your own decision making process. This code amounts to a tax/fee, if not outright theft since there's absolutely NO commentary about it in the code or online.


Honesty means you put the code in recently (which they did), and then announce it by explaining what it is. Or better yet, explain that you'd like to put such code in down the road and maybe make it an option set with a flag.

Instead they merely put it in without warning. That's DIShonest and pretty dumb. Another poor business move on their part.

At this point I would highly suggest that all folks using the Windows wallet cease  use of it and put your wallet into cold storage until the windows code can be verified. Easy way to do this is take the code and compile it under windows. If the CRC matches then you're safe, if the CRC doesn't match then your windows binary was modified from the source.

It would be hard to view it any other way without the devs talking about it, which i am sure they will. The fact that it is all open source just makes me doubt that there is anything nefarious about it. I have recently been thinking about why potcoin doesn't try to support some type of national organizations that are for reforming current laws. So seeing this today kinda made me happy. There is no reason to not contribute to a good cause, or 1% donation to charity 1% goes to maintaining the coin(which is more like a premine if you really want to split hairs, but i still don't see anything intrinsically wrong with this). As long as the devs are honest with the coins. It will make or break the coin if they go this route. They will either be transparent and gain mucho respect or be shady and lose a lot of the community. Like i said, i doubt anything sinister is meant by this.

Searching this forum for the variables that included "foundation" in the name only returned results for Potcoin and Leafcoin, like you mentioned.  Per the Leafcoin ANN thread:


Something just isn't adding up for me.  Only two coins share this exact code.  So what's the deal?  And why the change now?

-Fuse

I searched google for "FOUNDATION_CALCULATE" and "FOUNDATION_ADDRESS"

In google results, only found one coin with very similiar code: leafcoin

https://github.com/leafcoin/leafcoin/blob/master/src/main.h

Why does google search results not include potcoin or other coins?
Try searching online to find more coins with the same or similar code.

Like I said in my original post: if I was being dumb, let me know.  I was unaware of the "foundation" code origins.

That being said... if it was part of the original bitcoin wallet, why was it just added during this commit:

https://github.com/potcoin/potcoin/commit/d32925a06e09debc97f3ee2a7a00ae4a7e95bf57

It almost seems like an afterthought.

-Fuse

The foundation fee is not specific to potcoin, it has always been the developers intent to implement that function with particular licensed partners of the wallet program.  In such an activation event the "Foundation", who is a registered non-profit, gets a licensing fee to maintain the software.  That is why the code exists.  It is not nefarious but an intended feature of the wallet program.  It's a holdover from the original bitcoin wallet.

And NO on the windows version, the potcoin wallet devs don't do winblows.  That windows version was compiled by another party.  

For what it's worth it should be easy to test if some percent is disappearing from the wallet and someone would have noticed a 2% fee long ago.  (Though few would notice a few missing satoshi).

The code was commented out before the release of the latest wallet, and the address that was in the code shows no funds.  Mind you, that could have been changed with the precompiled clients, but not likely.

I didn't dig any further into the code, as I was looking at the code changes, but it's still unsettling to think that this could have just as easily been put in and no one would have questioned it.

Like Reagan astutely said, "Trust, but verify."

-Fuse

So is there a 2% tax on mining potcoin?

Realize that this is different than a pool taking 2% as it is on every block found. Also, if a pool charges 2% then it would be 4% being lost to the miners :/

If it is true then the fact that it was not communicated seems wrong and sneaky. Just because it was in the source is not a good enough reason in my book.

2% of all coins is a lot of coins.  That is 8.4m coins.  Mind you, this code would probably be going forward, but still... 2% of the remaining coins is a lot of coins.  I agree that if it's being used for ASICs or public relations, then so be it.  The devs have been pretty anti-ASIC though... almost scared in some posts.  I'd love to see a plan for this like DOGE.

I'd also still like to know if the dev team has shirts, business cards, media kits, etc.  The only news we've gotten lately is that they moved into a new office.  That's great and all, but unless you're bringing prospects back for meetings, it's just an added expense.  Get the business branded and promoted.  Spend the money on radio ads, mailers, flyers, business cards that handed out to everyone they meet... the list goes on.  Hell even 0.5% of the total coins would take care of this long term.

I'm not concerned about what could be done with 2%, I would just like to know what it's all about.  In my mind it's just a premine after the fact.

Currently, the donation address for POT is at 588k POT as seen here: http://potchain.net/address/PLZUTZv6BrZHPnir1Qv5RwDjoNiPZLcDHf.  People donate to the group.  If they get their goal of 1 gram per coin, I'm pretty sure that's a decent starting point for motivation to continue to work on the coin.

-Fuse

Personally, as long as things are transparent, i like the idea of having 2% go towards the advancement of marijuana laws or some type of foundation like that. Like perhaps the foundation is NORML or something.  Being open source, that you found it, i can't say they are being deceptive about things, it is there. Should they have added another comment line describing what it is so that when people do find it, they know, YES, they should have.

Also, thinking about it as i type, i don't think i would even mind 2% if it was for the coins future (i have mined on pools that take more, meh). It wouldn't be a bad idea to have some type of general fund, to buy asic miners with or something, to support the coin further down the line. At least that is how i feel, i know it isn't the popular opinion per say, but it is the most logical one. Money is the oil of the machine in which we live. Keeps things moving along nice and smooth. I would rather see the devs have some type of REAL motivation to press the coin further. Why should they bust their balls and do all this work, for the rest of us to benefit from as well. It is easy for me to come online and type a few paragraphs pissin and moaning about things, they can ALWAYS be better. It really isn't doing much for the coin though, i am not making calls, shaking hands, and kissing babies. I completely recognize that people need motivation to accomplish things. Pavlov was a pretty interesting dude. http://www2.psychology.uiowa.edu/faculty/wasserman/glossary/reflex.html

Either way, i am anxious to hear about this from the devs. I like the watchman vigilance thing, gotta keep them eyes peeled! Thanks Fuse!