Poll FTC richclub - bad or good idea
-
No its just a discussion. Which formed after concerns were raised about the original idea. Its an agile process - challenge -> discuss -> refine -> repeat
-
So is eating of Carolina Reaper :)
What I mean is, if there is a ‘plan B’, it might be a plan for the voting to reflect the improved options. Some of the ‘bad’ voters may wish to move their votes.
P.S, have you ever eaten a Reaper?
-
How about we build a decentralised voting system into the wallet where regardless of the amount of ftc you hold in that address, the weighting of your vote remains the same.
…
The idea is that everyone can vote by % of sacrifice from the address.The big unaddressed problem of bitcoin is centralization of hashing. To truly address it, we would need a proof of human identity, which cannot be mathematical. I don’t know how to solve it, but without it, your suggestion won’t work. True ACP decentralization is also impossible without it.
-
Although maybe we should rename it to “FTC Investors Club”…
Sorry to nitpick, FTC is not a stock, it is a currency. You do not invest in it, you save it.
-
Pano, I agree with this. To have anonymity means that the creation of multiple identities is possible, which makes the trust issue tricky.
-
What I mean is, if there is a ‘plan B’, it might be a plan for the voting to reflect the improved options. Some of the ‘bad’ voters may wish to move their votes.
P.S, have you ever eaten a Reaper?
Not yet :)
If we evolve the original idea we can make completely new poll later.
-
The big question is, do we need physical human identities or do we just need some sort of cryptographic measure of trust. A digital identity with an unfalsifiable ‘rating’ could increase trust without the need to share identity with people. The digital citizen’s ID ratings could be ruined by running a scam. How you’d keep this from being falsified is tricky. But in my mind, the incentive of losing your ‘reputation’ is strong glue in the real world that prevents people from acting out of character, there might be a way to emulate this for digital cititzens.
-
Not yet :)
If we evolve the original idea we can make completely new poll later.
Plan.
I’ve not eaten anything quite that hot either. TBH, a habanero is a horrendous enough experience raw.
-
I don’t mean we invest “in” FTC we invest “with” FTC.
-
The big question is, do we need physical human identities or do we just need some sort of cryptographic measure of trust. A digital identity with an unfalsifiable ‘rating’ could increase trust without the need to share identity with people. The digital citizen’s ID ratings could be ruined by running a scam. How you’d keep this from being falsified is tricky. But in my mind, the incentive of losing your ‘reputation’ is strong glue in the real world that prevents people from acting out of character, there might be a way to emulate this for digital cititzens.
Considering the needs of ACP decentralization, we would need a “proof” of autonomous personhood. (Real mathematical proof of this is impossible.) Once identified, we would assume that private keys of persons prove their autonomous participation. Decentralized ACP would have to be rewarded, which would also provide the answer to future Neoscrypt ASICs. White market will provide identity checking an pairing of persons with wallets.
-
Based on the discussion I think that development and features need to be driven by comunity and developers.
-
Based on the discussion I think that development and features need to be driven by comunity and developers.
Sure, but the development cost something (i.e. ACP - 10BTC? for Sunny, GPU miner - 1,5BTC? for Andre…)
-
I agree that there needs to be a way to monetise things.
-
This means we don’t have dev. community if there is need to buy features and tools… As I know another coins have their own dev. teams that invest in coin in order to increase value of their property…
-
I’m thinking about investing with development but here I have seen a lot of good projects that are idle now and were always on the second place because some “nice” reads or scam operations took their place…
But really isn’t time to speak about the past it will be good to focus on the feature and learn from mistakes -
… focus on the feature and learn from mistakes
you said a mouthful there
-
I hope Developers should hold 100K FTC and the other team members should hold 50K FTC. :)
We go to heaven or go to hell
-
I refuse to hold greater than 25k ftc. Plain and simple. Untill I leave my role as team/staff, I don’t want to have any conflict of interest.
I have me reason’s but I have no qualms with other team members holding any amount they want.
-
I’ve got spare time and ideas for FTC and I’m purchasing small amounts every day, but I don’t have the available funds to go out and buy even 50,000 FTC, if this became a requirement I would not be able to be part of the team.
We also then run the risk of making the team a ‘rich mans club’ too where team and developers could put personal short term gains above long term goals for FTC.
Personally I have no issue with team members or devs holding as much or as little as they want as long as we all contribute ‘effort’ towards the same end goal.
-
I’ve got spare time and ideas for FTC and I’m purchasing small amounts every day, but I don’t have the available funds to go out and buy even 50,000 FTC, if this became a requirement I would not be able to be part of the team.
We also then run the risk of making the team a ‘rich mans club’ too where team and developers could put personal short term gains above long term goals for FTC.
Personally I have no issue with team members or devs holding as much or as little as they want as long as we all contribute ‘effort’ towards the same end goal.
Perhaps some people yes, but not every developer is as you say. This is just to prove to the user, we work with you together. If you have any losses, we also have.
