Microcash is scam because it not store of value. Best to put money in bank with 0.25% annual interest or under mattress than put in Microcash.
With Microcash daily account fee you lose money every day.
Topic: Why is Microcash a scam? - page 3. (Read 6430 times)
If you store some tiny ass amount in an account and expect it to be there in 20 years, that is ridiculous.
No, it's not. There are countless banks in the real world that provide free checking and savings accounts. My jar of pennies on my shelf also stores cash indefinitely at no charge. Digital currencies should also be free to store their value. Transaction fees and block rewards provide plenty of value to the miners.
Most transactions are less than a K in size, so storing one costs ~$0.000001667 and that number gets smaller every day.
Its actually less than that
http://komplett.ie/Komplett/product/intern_3_5_/20098836/seagate_2tb_sata_600_7200rpm_64mb/details.aspx
2000GB = €117
1GB = €0.0585
1MB = €0.00005712890625
1KB = €0.00000005578994750976563
€0.00000005578994750976563
=
$0.00000004184246063232422
Also, average size of a transaction is roughly 500B, so its even smaller again. You can store 2 million transactions for $0.01
I just used 1TB for $100 I think. But yeah, it is a small amount.
I consider it scam, because there is no valid proof it´s not.
Plus the community lacks all means of delivering or validating such a proof.
Plus the community lacks all means of delivering or validating such a proof.
Why exactly must people lose their money for participating in the currency?
Nobody has articulated that need to my satisfaction.
Nobody has articulated that need to my satisfaction.
The problem is the lack of participation. If you store some tiny ass amount in an account and expect it to be there in 20 years, that is ridiculous. Why does everyone have to service you for nothing? Bandwidth and storage are cheap, but they are not free. However, I think the way soiledcoin 3 is doing this is just another early adopter scam joke. Charge inactivity fees after an extended period of time, but not daily fees regardless if there is activity or not. If you are making or receiving transactions, then you are supporting the network regardless of how much is in your account and you shouldn't be charged anything since you are already paying tx fees--and it ensures that the wallet key is not lost. If you have some piddly balance after a year with no activity, yes you should be charged a fee, imo.
Bitcoin has made a bunch of self-serving whiners that expect everything to be free on the backs of the people who actually support the network. Although, at this point, a good majority of them are miners too, but this will certainly not always be the case. Not that the bitcoin network is even capable of charging inactivity fees though.
The security of Bitcoin is proportional to the length of it's block chain. Each block added makes past transactions more secure so adding blocks is in everyones interest. Most transactions are less than a K in size, so storing one costs ~$0.000001667 and that number gets smaller every day. Transactions can be pruned in theory (although the client does not yet support this feature), so in theory not every client need store the full blockchain for 20 years.
Every bitcoin client stores the blockchain and more importantly, they check the validity of it. How can the clients be whining and expecting free stuff when every single one is paying to store the blockchain and verify it?
Why exactly must people lose their money for participating in the currency?
Nobody has articulated that need to my satisfaction.
Nobody has articulated that need to my satisfaction.
The problem is the lack of participation. If you store some tiny ass amount in an account and expect it to be there in 20 years, that is ridiculous. Why does everyone have to service you for nothing? Bandwidth and storage are cheap, but they are not free. However, I think the way soiledcoin 3 is doing this is just another early adopter scam joke. Charge inactivity fees after an extended period of time, but not daily fees regardless if there is activity or not. If you are making or receiving transactions, then you are supporting the network regardless of how much is in your account and you shouldn't be charged anything since you are already paying tx fees--and it ensures that the wallet key is not lost. If you have some piddly balance after a year with no activity, yes you should be charged a fee, imo.
Bitcoin has made a bunch of self-serving whiners that expect everything to be free on the backs of the people who actually support the network. Although, at this point, a good majority of them are miners too, but this will certainly not always be the case. Not that the bitcoin network is even capable of charging inactivity fees though.
Its a scam because its SolidCoin!. Enough Said!
I still can't believe that CH and crew thought simply changing the name was to fool anyone.
I made 40 Bitcoins from that SolidCoin crap so I don't feel too bad. I was foolish though I could have made at least 500 Bitcoin if I had played my cards right.
Its a scam because its SolidCoin!. Enough Said!
I propose to be one of those computers storing the accounts and transactions. In fact I propose to store your account and transaction information. So pay me 0.005 cents for storing your account and I will pay you 0.005 cents for storing mine and those two payments cancel each other out. I know that algorithm works for 2 nodes, I think it works for N nodes. 
Since most users in MicroCash won't be running nodes this isn't a zero sum game for the nodes. Apparently all running nodes are going to be paid a reward from the CPF through some mechanism. I doubt it's going to be "that much" though.
If all running nodes are paid, why tax them in the first place? So you can take a cut for "administration fees" ?
If you the creator of Soiledcoin don't know, how is anyone to have any faith in your work?
Are you just making this up as you go? If so, that isn't a good foundation for a cryptocurrency. It would explain why there is no alpha or beta source, and why no paper has been written detailing the inner workings of SoiledCoin 3.
You are proposing to charge the providers of the service, the nodes are the ones storing the information and providing this "luxury". They provide this in order to verify that the block chain is correct, which in turns provides security for those depending on that correctness.
Everyone who has an account pays, not just the node operators. People who run nodes are generally going to be businesses, supporters and people seeking the utmost in anonymity.
Because there is no known way to pay nodes fees for running and providing the service in a decentralized manner MicroCash will be using part of the CPF to help support the infrastructure, which is a good use of it in my opinion.
So your plan is this:
since you have no idea how to reward nodes based on value provided, you plan to give some coins to people who you think deserve it. At least you admitted it instead of saving it for surprise sex later.
That person running the node is providing the storage, network transfer and CPU usage that you are proposing to charge them for. So now it costs them twice as much to participate. If Microcash needs money to defend itself, it is not secure. If a authoritative group needs to collect these funds then Microcash is not decentralized. The power, profit, and motivations becomes highly concentrated in the accounts with the most coins. Coincidentally, you control the most coins in the block chain at the moment. Or is it coincidence?
Anyone running a node is storing the blockchain but they aren't the only one. Part of the reason p2p decentralization works in a security sense is the fact hundreds or thousands of computers store the same information. If your computer is corrupted you then go out to the other nodes who have it stored (storage cost) and ask them to send you everything (cpu and network cost). So even though you are storing it there is still a cost in those other hundreds of computers storing your information also.
Yep, and when one of them crashes I am storing the block-chain for them. The can download part or all of it from me. Thus the term "peer" is applied. All the nodes are providing the same service.
Most people think putting a price on services is a good thing as it means it can't be taken advantage of. This is the reason for Bitcoin transaction fees after all?
In the Bitcoin model the miners get all the fees, why isn't this discussed as unfair? All the non mining nodes do the same work and they get nothing. At least in MicroCash anyone who has an account does get something back for all the network fees (both transaction and account). So this means nodes are paid indirectly for helping the network, the amount they get paid just depends on how much MicroCash they have.
In the Bitcoin model the miners get all the fees, why isn't this discussed as unfair? All the non mining nodes do the same work and they get nothing. At least in MicroCash anyone who has an account does get something back for all the network fees (both transaction and account). So this means nodes are paid indirectly for helping the network, the amount they get paid just depends on how much MicroCash they have.
You say that the non-mining BTC nodes do the same work as mining BTC nodes? You say that non-miners magically create blocks and encode transactions in them? That is a bizarre statement and betrays a deep misundertanding of Bitcoin. No wonder you are so hostile to BTC, you have an incomplete understanding of how it works.
The amount collected in daily transaction fees is only a relatively small amount, each account only pays half a cent, most real banks charge on the order of 100x more. So it's certainly not free like Bitcoin, but it's also much less than real banks. People have a choice if they think a daily half cent fee is too much or if they think that the biggest accounts are getting unfair rewards. If these two things are contentious to new users then MicroCash simply won't be popular. I don't see how these concepts are too negative though as they are similar to what people in the real world already deal with today (account fees and interest).
When comparing to real life banks a daily half cent fee is about 100 times less cost to a business. When comparing to wiring funds around the world a half cent fixed fee is about 6000 times less. When compared to buying items, you can buy something in MicroCash that is 5c and only pay a 10% fee for it, Visa/Mastercard would be jealous. MicroCash when compared to real life examples is extremely competitive.
When comparing to real life banks a daily half cent fee is about 100 times less cost to a business. When comparing to wiring funds around the world a half cent fixed fee is about 6000 times less. When compared to buying items, you can buy something in MicroCash that is 5c and only pay a 10% fee for it, Visa/Mastercard would be jealous. MicroCash when compared to real life examples is extremely competitive.
Yes. Congrats, Microcash charges less than real banks do. You do charge account fees and interest just like banks do. So if people want to put their money in a bank run by an unknown group of people, running code they have never seen, running a system that it's creator cannot exlain, they can. They can feel right at home getting charged fees and taxes which go straight into the pocket of the "bankers".
P2P and decentralised mean two things to me - FREE and Opensource - Which MicroCash is neither.
But what happens when you need to hire a lawyer and there is no protection fund?
oh, Why is microcash a scam?
It needs a protection fund
oh, Why is microcash a scam?
It needs a protection fund
MicroCash will be using part of the CPF to help support the infrastructure
... There you have it then
I propose to be one of those computers storing the accounts and transactions. In fact I propose to store your account and transaction information. So pay me 0.005 cents for storing your account and I will pay you 0.005 cents for storing mine and those two payments cancel each other out. I know that algorithm works for 2 nodes, I think it works for N nodes.
Since most users in MicroCash won't be running nodes this isn't a zero sum game for the nodes. Apparently all running nodes are going to be paid a reward from the CPF through some mechanism. I doubt it's going to be "that much" though.
You are proposing to charge the providers of the service, the nodes are the ones storing the information and providing this "luxury". They provide this in order to verify that the block chain is correct, which in turns provides security for those depending on that correctness.
Everyone who has an account pays, not just the node operators. People who run nodes are generally going to be businesses, supporters and people seeking the utmost in anonymity.
Because there is no known way to pay nodes fees for running and providing the service in a decentralized manner MicroCash will be using part of the CPF to help support the infrastructure, which is a good use of it in my opinion.
That person running the node is providing the storage, network transfer and CPU usage that you are proposing to charge them for. So now it costs them twice as much to participate. If Microcash needs money to defend itself, it is not secure. If a authoritative group needs to collect these funds then Microcash is not decentralized. The power, profit, and motivations becomes highly concentrated in the accounts with the most coins. Coincidentally, you control the most coins in the block chain at the moment. Or is it coincidence?
Anyone running a node is storing the blockchain but they aren't the only one. Part of the reason p2p decentralization works in a security sense is the fact hundreds or thousands of computers store the same information. If your computer is corrupted you then go out to the other nodes who have it stored (storage cost) and ask them to send you everything (cpu and network cost). So even though you are storing it there is still a cost in those other hundreds of computers storing your information also.
Most people think putting a price on services is a good thing as it means it can't be taken advantage of. This is the reason for Bitcoin transaction fees after all?
In the Bitcoin model the miners get all the fees, why isn't this discussed as unfair? All the non mining nodes do the same work and they get nothing. At least in MicroCash anyone who has an account does get something back for all the network fees (both transaction and account). So this means nodes are paid indirectly for helping the network, the amount they get paid just depends on how much MicroCash they have.
The amount collected in daily transaction fees is only a relatively small amount, each account only pays half a cent, most real banks charge on the order of 100x more. So it's certainly not free like Bitcoin, but it's also much less than real banks. People have a choice if they think a daily half cent fee is too much or if they think that the biggest accounts are getting unfair rewards. If these two things are contentious to new users then MicroCash simply won't be popular. I don't see how these concepts are too negative though as they are similar to what people in the real world already deal with today (account fees and interest).
When comparing to real life banks a daily half cent fee is about 100 times less cost to a business. When comparing to wiring funds around the world a half cent fixed fee is about 6000 times less. When compared to buying items, you can buy something in MicroCash that is 5c and only pay a 10% fee for it, Visa/Mastercard would be jealous. MicroCash when compared to real life examples is extremely competitive.
Why exactly must people lose their money for participating in the currency?
Nobody has articulated that need to my satisfaction.
Nobody has articulated that need to my satisfaction.
Because there is a cost involved in storing your accounts and transactions on hundreds or thousands of computers around the world.
I propose to be one of those computers storing the accounts and transactions. In fact I propose to store your account and transaction information. So pay me 0.005 cents for storing your account and I will pay you 0.005 cents for storing mine and those two payments cancel each other out. I know that algorithm works for 2 nodes, I think it works for N nodes.
It's free in Bitcoin, but there is a small fee in MicroCash for this luxury. Just because it's free in Bitcoin doesn't mean it's a scam to have fees for actual services.
You are proposing to charge the providers of the service, the nodes are the ones storing the information and providing this "luxury". They provide this in order to verify that the block chain is correct, which in turns provides security for those depending on that correctness. Just because one person runs a node doesn't mean everyone else around the network doesn't have to also store their accounts and transactions. There is a cost for storage, network transfer and cpu usage related to accounts, MicroCash has a fee for this so that it can protect itself from spam and so that the system self cleanses. If you don't like the daily half cent (0.005) fee then you don't have to use MicroCash. No one is forcing you to use the service.
That person running the node is providing the storage, network transfer and CPU usage that you are proposing to charge them for. So now it costs them twice as much to participate. If Microcash needs money to defend itself, it is not secure. If a authoritative group needs to collect these funds then Microcash is not decentralized. The power, profit, and motivations becomes highly concentrated in the accounts with the most coins. Coincidentally, you control the most coins in the block chain at the moment. Or is it coincidence?
Why exactly must people lose their money for participating in the currency?
Nobody has articulated that need to my satisfaction.
Nobody has articulated that need to my satisfaction.
Because there is a cost involved in storing your accounts and transactions on hundreds or thousands of computers around the world.
It's free in Bitcoin, but there is a small fee in MicroCash for this luxury. Just because it's free in Bitcoin doesn't mean it's a scam to have fees for actual services. Just because one person runs a node doesn't mean everyone else around the network doesn't have to also store their accounts and transactions. There is a cost for storage, network transfer and cpu usage related to accounts, MicroCash has a fee for this so that it can protect itself from spam and so that the system self cleanses. If you don't like the daily half cent (0.005) fee then you don't have to use MicroCash. No one is forcing you to use the service.
I think a better approach for coins redistribution would be to create thresholds for three classes of accounts:
1) spam/dust account x < 0.5 mc
2) low income account 0.5 < x < 10000 mc
3) high income account x > 10000 mc
Then the rules would be the following:
- spam/dust accounts gravitate to zero over time (decay with fees)
- low income accounts gravitate towards middle threshold 10000 mc (grow with interest)
- high income accounts gravitate towards middle threshold 10000 mc (decay with fees)
EDIT: plus add the rule that if any account hasn't been spent from for a period of time,
the interest (if any) drops to zero, the fees start to apply (if haven't before).
This will allow dead accounts no matter of which class to eventually decay to zero.
Just my two cents.
1) spam/dust account x < 0.5 mc
2) low income account 0.5 < x < 10000 mc
3) high income account x > 10000 mc
Then the rules would be the following:
- spam/dust accounts gravitate to zero over time (decay with fees)
- low income accounts gravitate towards middle threshold 10000 mc (grow with interest)
- high income accounts gravitate towards middle threshold 10000 mc (decay with fees)
EDIT: plus add the rule that if any account hasn't been spent from for a period of time,
the interest (if any) drops to zero, the fees start to apply (if haven't before).
This will allow dead accounts no matter of which class to eventually decay to zero.
Just my two cents.
Why exactly must people lose their money for participating in the currency?
Nobody has articulated that need to my satisfaction.
I agree with you, no need to lose money and we already have bitcoin for that.
Actually what I just described wouldn't work as people would just start splitting their accounts as they get to the middle threshold and above.
There is a difference between losing control of your private key and losing currency by design. Why must the currency be redistributed among it's users?
Everyone is still addressing how it should be redistributed, not why.
I think a better approach for coins redistribution would be to create thresholds for three classes of accounts:
1) spam/dust account x < 0.5 mc
2) low income account 0.5 < x < 10000 mc
3) high income account x > 10000 mc
Then the rules would be the following:
- spam/dust accounts gravitate to zero over time (decay with fees)
- low income accounts gravitate towards middle threshold 10000 mc (grow with interest)
- high income accounts gravitate towards middle threshold 10000 mc (decay with fees)
EDIT: plus add the rule that if any account hasn't been spent from for a period of time,
the interest (if any) drops to zero, the fees start to apply (if haven't before).
This will allow dead accounts no matter of which class to eventually decay to zero.
Just my two cents.
1) spam/dust account x < 0.5 mc
2) low income account 0.5 < x < 10000 mc
3) high income account x > 10000 mc
Then the rules would be the following:
- spam/dust accounts gravitate to zero over time (decay with fees)
- low income accounts gravitate towards middle threshold 10000 mc (grow with interest)
- high income accounts gravitate towards middle threshold 10000 mc (decay with fees)
EDIT: plus add the rule that if any account hasn't been spent from for a period of time,
the interest (if any) drops to zero, the fees start to apply (if haven't before).
This will allow dead accounts no matter of which class to eventually decay to zero.
Just my two cents.
Why exactly must people lose their money for participating in the currency?
Nobody has articulated that need to my satisfaction.
I agree with you, no need to lose money and we already have bitcoin for that.
Actually what I just described wouldn't work as people would just start splitting their accounts as they get to the middle threshold and above.
I think a better approach for coins redistribution would be to create thresholds for three classes of accounts:
1) spam/dust account x < 0.5 mc
2) low income account 0.5 < x < 10000 mc
3) high income account x > 10000 mc
Then the rules would be the following:
- spam/dust accounts gravitate to zero over time (decay with fees)
- low income accounts gravitate towards middle threshold 10000 mc (grow with interest)
- high income accounts gravitate towards middle threshold 10000 mc (decay with fees)
EDIT: plus add the rule that if any account hasn't been spent from for a period of time,
the interest (if any) drops to zero, the fees start to apply (if haven't before).
This will allow dead accounts no matter of which class to eventually decay to zero.
Just my two cents.
1) spam/dust account x < 0.5 mc
2) low income account 0.5 < x < 10000 mc
3) high income account x > 10000 mc
Then the rules would be the following:
- spam/dust accounts gravitate to zero over time (decay with fees)
- low income accounts gravitate towards middle threshold 10000 mc (grow with interest)
- high income accounts gravitate towards middle threshold 10000 mc (decay with fees)
EDIT: plus add the rule that if any account hasn't been spent from for a period of time,
the interest (if any) drops to zero, the fees start to apply (if haven't before).
This will allow dead accounts no matter of which class to eventually decay to zero.
Just my two cents.
Why exactly must people lose their money for participating in the currency?
Nobody has articulated that need to my satisfaction.
I think a better approach for coins redistribution would be to create thresholds for three classes of accounts:
1) spam/dust account x < 0.5 mc
2) low income account 0.5 < x < 10000 mc
3) high income account x > 10000 mc
Then the rules would be the following:
- spam/dust accounts gravitate to zero over time (decay with fees)
- low income accounts gravitate towards middle threshold 10000 mc (grow with interest)
- high income accounts gravitate towards middle threshold 10000 mc (decay with fees)
EDIT: plus add the rule that if any account hasn't been spent from for a period of time,
the interest (if any) drops to zero, the fees start to apply (if haven't before).
This will allow dead accounts no matter of which class to eventually decay to zero.
Just my two cents.
1) spam/dust account x < 0.5 mc
2) low income account 0.5 < x < 10000 mc
3) high income account x > 10000 mc
Then the rules would be the following:
- spam/dust accounts gravitate to zero over time (decay with fees)
- low income accounts gravitate towards middle threshold 10000 mc (grow with interest)
- high income accounts gravitate towards middle threshold 10000 mc (decay with fees)
EDIT: plus add the rule that if any account hasn't been spent from for a period of time,
the interest (if any) drops to zero, the fees start to apply (if haven't before).
This will allow dead accounts no matter of which class to eventually decay to zero.
Just my two cents.
It is a scam because you are not an early adopter.
Oh wait, it is the same with BTC ...
Oh wait, it is the same with BTC ...
If you steal 25 BTC from a nice German guy on btc-e chat ( say transaction 84bfc754ff8e60d1042be7e6c2a0e6b83d5fdc4919a4e7c9efac6c86bec67d0a ) and keep it in your wallet ( address 1Bu1424Lf7y3Jz9p4ZyCo2mRSQDwdaXrHa ) you will have 25 BTC today.
You will have 25 BTC tomorrow.
You will have 25 BTC next month.
You will have 25 BTC next year.
You will have 25 BTC next decade.
If you started with 25 MC you would have 25 MC today.
You will have 25 MC minus minor losses tomorrow.
You will have 25 MC minus bigger losses next month.
You will have a seriously degraded amount next year.
You will have nothing or almost nothing next decade.
So where do the coins that got taken from you go? To everyone else who owns coins proportional to the number of coins they own. That is they go mostly to CoinHunter and his cronies.
The difference between BitCoin's early adopters and MicroCash's inner circle is that the MicroCash system is rigged by design to slowly filter coins away from everyone and into the wallet of CoinHunter. BitCoin early adopters have to give up some part of their capital in order to get value from their coins, MicroCash's inner circle do not. Therefore MicroCash is a bad medium for quick transactions and a truly awful store of value.
Microcash is a scam. Not in some figurative or weasel-worded sense but in a very real one.
Jump to: