Truthcoin-on-BTC site: https://bitcoinhivemind.com
Quote from: toast on May 28, 2014, 12:51:18 AMThere is also a question of coin distribution vs share distribution. Whichever is the one that pays fees is the one that should be preallocated to AGS/PTS/"PTC".
Quote from: toast on May 28, 2014, 02:37:29 AMSorry, could you clarify? I tried to find the coins vs shares in the whitepaper and couldn't.From what you just described, both the coins and the shares are the "voting shares" used for outcomes. What is used for what? What charges fees for what?
Quote from: CLains on May 28, 2014, 05:30:58 PMPeople have tried everything, and are still trying even more things than that to market their coin. The altcoin community may be blind and stupid, but so is evolution, and in the last two years they have evolved a lot. From the emerging strategies I have seen, the safe thing to do is to collect a lot of money by IPO, which seconds as an initial hype of your product. This will get you investors who do not sell low, which will get your coin up a reasonable distance at coinmarketcap once it launches, and it will get you enough money to hire someone to do web-page and viral marketing.Dropping everything on Bitcoin is extremely risky, and to be honest it feels like an attempt at coming up with some unique marketing. I would not want you to risk your neck on a single marketing stunt like that when you have no experience with marketing. Instead, let your code and product speak for itself to savvy, wealthy investors who are eager to listen and get involved, and then later try all the stunts you want, and hire professionals marketers to draw in the faceless horde. /2cents
Quote from: zack on May 29, 2014, 09:47:53 PMI think we should have an exchange, and put a MASSIVE sell order with all the coins.As people buy them, we use the bitcoin they give us to put a buy order at 0.99* the sell order.Everyone can easily convert back and forth, just by paying a 1% fee. It is backed by bitcoin, and they have to trust the centralized organization to uphold this promise.Eventually, truthcoin community outgrows the centralized institution. All the coins are purchased. Then the price of truthcoin floats freely against bitcoin, and the centralized institution stops existing,the investors keeping all the bitcoins as profit.The centralized institution needs to decide on it's total profits from day one. 1,000 bitcoins? 10,000 bitcoins?If you aim too high, a different centralized institution could undercut. If you are too low, then your community wont be big enough to have stable truthcoin/bitcoin exchange rate.
Quote from: crimealone on May 29, 2014, 08:27:51 AMI really appreciate what you have done. I'm not a coder. What can I do to help you?
Quote from: toast on May 28, 2014, 12:51:18 AM the supply is fixed and the price per share is determined by splitting the fixed shares-per-day among all the donators from any particular day. (Personally I think you should count time in terms of blocks instead of days, but whatever).
Quote from: toast on May 28, 2014, 12:51:18 AMI do *not* recommend distributing shares to miners. Mining has not been "fair" or "decentralized" for like a year now. Even if you go with POW, their rewards should be paid explicitly from the network's income rather than implicitly via coin/share dilution. Miners are subcontractors for your network.
Quote from: psztorc on May 30, 2014, 10:56:01 PMIf you read Satoshi's whitepaper, you'll see the blockrewards were distributed to miners for two reasons. Firstly, they provided subcontracting, but secondly they "[provided] a way to initially distribute coins into circulation". Kaldor-Hicks (profitability) is not enough, a value network must be a Pareto Improvement (incentive compatible for a critical mass) to get people to switch and re-create the network effects of money (which are paramount). This second reason contributed more to Bitcoin's success, in my view, than the first "subcontractor" reason. If Satoshi had given (not mined) any coins to himself, he would invite an immediate fork(s) of the project, and critical mass and network effects would never have emerged.
Quote from: psztorc on May 31, 2014, 11:23:51 PMI'm only giving the coins to miners as they mine in the future. The rest of the coins are going to Bitcoin owners.Satoshi solved the allocation problem by distributing the coins not to whoever he thought deserved them, but to anyone interested enough in Bitcoin to prove that interest by CPU mining. The point was that he didn't make it about himself, or his preferences (because there are a lot of people in the world, who could have copied Bitcoin and made it about themselves or their preferences), but instead made it on the principle of building a network (and building network effects). That is what I am trying to emulate.Its not about copying Bitcoin because Bitcoin is good, its about plugging into the best network.