Quote from: RandyMagnum on May 29, 2013, 04:35:38 PM

I was simply trying to disconnect that one Luckybit post from the project in a friendly, non-disrespectful way. I'm not sure why you quoted me, but I'm certainly not for anything other than perhaps a mix of TacoTime and Coblee's release week ideas.

What you don't understand about my post because you're so focused on "red flag words" and it sounds 1%ish, is the fact that by the time this coin releases the cryptocurrency landscape will be very different.

Individuals aren't going to be in the mining business like they are now. There will be huge farms set up run by businesses who will simply point their hashing power at this coin or any other coin. So anything other than a syndicate, collective, or organized release, is not going to be fair.

How is it fair if you and I have let's say 1200Mhash/s but we can't get any coins at all because the moment of the IPO 5 corporations with farms all point their hashing power at it? ASICminer whether you like what they did or not has permanently changed the way things are done. If we don't have to worry about technical details and can just buy shares in a rig that is part of the Netcoin network certified by the community then what is the issue with that? How can it get more fair than that?

At the same time if we remain unorganized then you'll never achieve a high market cap in a short amount of time. Market cap is a result of organization, people starting businesses, hiring each other, etc. I'm advocating that we start the businesses in parallel to the development of the coin. I used the word syndicate precisely because that is the word that businesses use to describe it. IPO is also a word businesses use. Marketing is also a word used by businesses, so what?

Here is the point, many people are anti-business, but being a business owner should not be considered a bad thing. It should not associate you with the 1% to want to be a business owner. It should not associate you with the 1% to want to be an investor. If you set the business up correctly, in the right legal form, it will benefit the community by providing jobs and building up infrastructure as a whole while organizing the community. Netcoin, Bitcoin or any other coin cannot be a success without a syndicate (use another word if you like) built around it.

Bitcoin has the foundation, but that foundation is really only set up to pay for development and isn't doing anything at all to pay for infrastructure. This left a big hole for venture capitalists and individuals actually from the 1% to take control of critical businesses so that over time they'll own all the shares in the important businesses which provide critical infrastructure instead of individuals like you and me.

What I propose is that individuals like you and me own shares in the syndicate itself which will support the community and build infrastructure for the benefit of it's shareholders in pursuit of it's mission. This sounds very business like, but if the idea is bad please give a better reason to dislike it other than it's language. It's kind of like saying some was a bad idea because the language sounds too liberal. Either the idea can work, or not, and that should decide.

Quote from: Trommie on May 29, 2013, 06:14:56 PM

It would be fantastic to get infrastructure such as pools/trading areas/securities set up well in advance of netcoin launching. If benny (or someone!) wants to set up a hashing company that will pay out in netcoins then I for one would happily buy shares for it in LTC or BTC and get paid dividends in netcoin.

If we can get a community up that will support it then it won't end up like the pump and dump copycoins that we've seen flash by.

Really excited by Netcoin, to be honest I've to date only considered LTC and BTC to be worthwhile.

This is the argument I'm trying to make. I'm saying we should organize right now so that we can start buying shares in stuff like that prior to launch so that when it does launch no one can say it wasn't fair. If you bought your shares in the syndicated mining rig then you'll guarantee to get dividends etc. This would build excitement right now and cause people to start businesses prior to Netcoin even being officially launched. By the time Netcoin launches it will be the most anticipated launch in altcoin history.

Or we can take the usual approach taken by PPcoin and others and just release the coin knowing it has the best technology and then just wait for a community to form around it. By the way I'm also willing to buy both shares in the Netcoin IPO or in a hashing company provided that the company is set up as a limited profit company (or maybe a collective?) and is accepted by the community. The reason I like the idea of syndication is so that people will know which companies are certified and which are potentially scams, or invested in or trusted by the community or not invested in and trusted by the community.

Quote from: rbdrbd on May 29, 2013, 04:59:49 PM

Quote from: 1Peter on May 29, 2013, 03:10:18 PM

I would shy away from having anything "closed" in this project.. as soon as you do that, you alienate everyone that isn't "in the club" and that's the last thing this coin needs.

Agreed. NetCoin needs to be open source from the start I believe, otherwise it will lack legitimacy. I believe as well that a Netcoin clone would be seen through by the community, with people gravitating to the "real deal" because of it's innovator advantage and strong development community.

This depends on how tacotime chooses to do it. Closed source will not be a popular decision but at the same time if it doesn't stay closed source for long it might not matter. It matters for how long it's going to be closed source. Honestly it's better to release it all open source from the start but if that is technologically difficult to impossible then open source it in stages with set dates which do not change.

Such as approximately X weeks after initial release, the source will be completely open. Then the community can say if it's not released open by that time they will ditch the coin.

Quote from: digitalindustry on May 29, 2013, 04:13:00 PM

Quote from: RandyMagnum on May 29, 2013, 02:50:59 PM

Luckybit uses some red-flag words that I personally believe no coin should associate itself with. Crypto-followers definitely didn't rally behind the nascent world of these coins hoping to follow the same, old, fiat trails on that vector. When I start seeing terms like IPOs, syndicate, pre-release (other thread), I also hear, "Danger, Danger Will Robinson!" We could call it "The 1%ers Coin."

As I don't believe that is the intended direction of crypto-currency, in general, I do not believe that is the direction of this one, either. There are legitimate ideas in his recent thread, but they're perhaps difficult to see below the text. Early organization is important, but I'm not certain we can't refine these ideas to be more popular among the community.

its already not well marketed, if they exclude a bunch of people it will just be a failure - plane and simple .

The design will be ripped sadly and then someone will re-release it, with a different name and no pre-mine "syndicate" "ipo" or pear tree.

This will be a pump dump because a few will have many units and the temptation to offload at profit will be great, such is the free market.

- what about a better idea - my security network friend was saying , are not orphans , just all about latency to the original block chain?

- what about this then, here is simple market genius

1.    what about a pool that is set up , secure and stable servers, that is announced days before the release weeks even, with all the info-

2.   Then have everyone connect to that pool in which is hosting the BC - at good latency - start at near or close to near 0 diff, but let everyone that wants to mine get good quality units with almost no orphans.

3.   Set the pool % fee high at the start for the Devs , say 15 % then the closer to diff 1 lower the % so .5 - 7% so on until diff 1 ,then lower the % to 4% and let the market go ,as other pools will be up by this stage and if others are hosting at below 4% then good.

4.   Because there is a number of units in the first critical period the % will pay the devs a lot of units , people will see that as fair as long as the orphan rate is lower than other currencies.

Its wins all around. net coin gets a decent start at life.

Hear me out, mining pools are old tech which came about after GPU power wasn't enough for people to solo mine as individuals. Mining farms or cloud mining syndicates are new tech which are coming to replace mining pools because soon most individuals will not be able to mine with profitability at all as the technical and accounting burden may become too much. If the security of Netcoin is based upon a distributed group of miners, in my opinion a syndication of the mining network would provide decentralization of the hashing power, while also providing farms which handle all of the technical issues so that individuals can simply hash in the cloud and only worry about paying a portion of their paycheck into these farms. These farms could accept credit, debit or whatever else and even grandma could own a share or two. I see that as the way forward. If you want to solo mine you still can but how if Bitcoin is mainstream at the time you're gonna have people throwing $20,000 into a room full of rigs and eventually these people will become the new median solo miner and even if you keep the pool infrastructure the pool still requires you to purchase, configure, and run your own mining hardware and what if you simply don't have the connections to get an ASIC, the technical expertise to build an ASIC, or the money at the time? If you set it up so people mine in the cloud then any amount of money, even $50 would get them something. This would remove the burden of technical expertise and connections and make mining more like an investment that anyone could get into just by buying the shares and when it's that simple then there will be much more hashrate overall and it would benefit the security of Netcoin as I understand it.

But who will certify these farms or hash clouds as being officially endorsed or not endorsed so that grandma knows which ones benefit the Netcoin economic eco-system and which ones are set up just to make money? By using alternative corporate legal entities such as collectives and syndicates or L3C's this can give us the assurance to know that. The syndicate would bring trust, which is something Bitcoin does not really have as a lot of people myself included have been scammed. It also would act to prevent power from concentrating into one mining farm or cloud hash service because if they are all L3C's you cannot have a MtGox type situation.