Quote from: werwohl on August 01, 2014, 08:00:20 PM

1) Merged mining: Is it really the same like mining Litecoin and Umbrella LTC with full hash rate separately? Why is not everybode merge mining if that's the case?

2) I might consider myself as Crypto-Newbie and have talked a lot with "non-tech" people about Cryptocurrencies. They don't get the revolutionary point and they don't care about the fascinating technology behind. All they ask is, why they should use them instead of credit cards etc. and where they can pay.

I think Umbrella coins could be the bridge to mainstream adoption! Think of PayPal - I really disregard them as seller, but from a buyer's perspective they are great. They offer security - or at least the feeling of security. This makes them successful despite enormous fees for the seller. If you can setup a similiar payment processor which is easy to use, has low fees, fairer dispute resolution and the backup of "umbrella insurance" it may be a huge success. I love the idea of secure exchanges. Also easy usability - I had smartphones long before the iPhone came out and nobody understood my need or fascination for them - think how Apple changed the market after that.

Cryptonerds might not like this kind of "institutional backup", but people generally trust institutions more then technical elegant "trustless" solutions - so yes, go for it - build the bridge for mainstream adoption

To keep this thread on track and free from clutter, as I have mentioned earlier I will remove baseless accusations of scams. If there is evidence to support your claim, then present it for all to see. If not, it's just FUD.

To respond to werwohl,

Our idea behind adopting the auxialry chain role was to break into the market easily. Like you said, people who are already mining Litecoin, why wouldn't you also mine some uLTC? We will see how this pans out. We see other coins who are merged mining gaining large hash (1 is at roughly 1/4 of Litecoins total hash). I assume this takes some time. Again, we are only 5 days old.

I agree with what you say about people trusting a third party institution. These are the same people who claim centralization is pure evil, but yet they trade and conduct business on centralized exchanges? What's the logic in that?

If the consensus is that this third-party is deemed untrustworthy, what is everyone's thoughts on bringing that portion back in-house, and creating a foundation to fulfill the duties of claims and investigations? This would be a good use-case for a foundation with real purpose. Not marketing or forming one because Bitcoin has one. This group would do real work that would benefit the community over time. It can be structured fairly with 5, 7 or 9 members voted-in. We can setup a multisig wallet that house the insurance funds?

Would this be more accepted by the community? How would these members be compensated for their work? How would we find them?

These are some questions to think about. I am open for discussion on any matter or concern as it pertains to these coins.

--Robert