Rik8119

The Solidarbot is planned also to be active on Telegram and Whatsapp. It is planned that you create a user account with the facebook bot and then use the bot to link your Telegram id to the bot in Telegram, so he knows you are using this app also. In that way you do not need to install the messenger on your phone if some other is already installed.

i was thinking of something like this (sort of with a kria).. Kria to the moon!

i was thinking of something like this (sort of with a kria).. Kria to the moon!

Of course there is a solution to that, its called: closed source! Just add some stinky unnecessary features that makes it impossible to read the blockchain without your client and you got it... But that was the world before Bitcoin, so i guess no one (well, excepting Roger and Jihan) wants to go back there..
Its not a bug, its THE feature!
And yes, you can still run the software from 2009 and refuse to update. But again who wants that? In the end its a consensus that is reached by following the chain with enough marketcap to make it work..

Gobsmacked. You really buried the lead for the most interesting possible updates. 
This is most interesting aspect of what you are planning for FRC. If you can help crack that and get FRC in that arena and at the forefront maybe there is hope for wider adoption. Personally when I first came to bitcoin it was a huge liability I saw where those with technical skills, resources, lower power costs would eventually 'control the coin'. Centralized mining in the hands of only a few corporations or organizations and a lot fraud has happened as a direct result of this race to centralization. Everyone has a phone. Everyone. 
I always hoped to see something where POW mining was on every hand-phone on the planet and it was not a massive warehouse requiring coal fired plants being fired up in Inner Mongolia securing the network. I will be following that thread closely and I hope there is a potential to bring mining back to the small scale really individuals rather than a collective entity with massive resources. I will read up on the link you posted. 

Skaro, not a currency split, but rather a protocol upgrade by means of a sidechain. I'll post more about it in the 'Future of Friecoin' thread. Actually it occurs to me that you probably mean "currency split" in the same sense as "stock split" -- for each freicoin you own now, you get two on the other side. Yes, that is approximately what I am suggesting. To be clear, it is different from the type of "currency split" you see going on right now with BTC/BCH, which is why I was confused at first.
Rik8119, well Freicoin has -5% demurrage, which is fixed, but also a constant subsidy that is equal to +5% per year. So the amount being created right now exactly counter-balances the amount being destroyed by demurrage. meaning there is zero net inflation. However that is only true if you consider the Freicoin Foundation funds as part of that calculation -- otherwise there is something like 14% inflation per year at this time. Even if the foundation funds were destroyed there would continue to be inflation for decades until the net usable issuance once again approximates 100M coins, at which point demurrage would equal subsidy.
As Jorge points out in the beginning of this thread, this can be fixed by either distributing or issuing the coins more quickly (rightly rejected), or by doing a soft-fork to lower the subsidy. However that approach changes mining incentives and carries with it significant risks. A better approach, I argue, is to tie the subsidy fix to an opt-in protocol upgrade package. This gives us more options and lets us decouple the two issues of the future of the foundation and what to do about the resulting subsidy/demurage mismatch.

Hi @Mark Friedenbach, thanks for your commitment to the coin. And thanks for bringing up your ideas, i just dont see why we need a further inflation when the foundation is gone.. The foundation was thought to give the coins into market participants, now they are thrown direct on the exchange. For miners it is maybe great short term but inflation on top of demurrage really makes no sense to me and most likely scares of investors. Of course it was planned like this from the beginning but i didnt understood it in the first place ;).
But ok lets save this for another thread and let the foundation coins burn as a first step to be continued...

Hi Maaku! 
Is what you are describing a currency split to bring remaining funds back up to a total supply of 100 million?
 

Wow, what a thread!
Jorge told me of his intention to post this, and I told him that although I had some feedback to give he should post anyway and I will provide my own thoughts as a comment. Now that I've wrapped up being a block chain trainer at the BC-2 workshop in Japan, I actually have time to do so.
First, I'm very thankful to see that most of the community are of the same mind regarding this issue (also, hi galambo!). The foundation was created for the purpose of solving a problem we perceived with the two competing requirements of the distribution mechanism: we wanted it to be fast so that the monetary base stabilized quickly and we could test Gesell's theory of money, but we also wanted to avoid plausible allegations of pre-mining. Sadly we must recognize that we accomplished neither -- the inflation rate of freicoin is unclear so long as the future of the foundation funds is undetermined, and the "foundation" has been misconstrued by many to resemble other foundations with more centralized purposes.
Really all we did was punt the issue. We hoped that we could come up with another fair, decentralized mechanism for distribution of the foundation funds. In reality that task proved nearly impossible, and certainly not doable with the manpower available. Republicoin remains on the drawing board as we were unable to come up with a suitably decentralized version that didn't compromise privacy and fungibility goals, let alone implement any of the half-working solutions. The charity matching program is technically still live but hasn't been operational as the backend suffers some major exploitable flaws.
So reason number 1 to kill the foundation is that it seems we are unable to meet the technical goals for distribution, and arguably we should all prefer to see those funds destroyed in a publicly verifiable way rather than compromise on those ideals and do something that could be construed as an actual pre-mine.
The second reason is regulatory.
Coin Center released in 2016 a good legal brief for deciding whether a cryptocurrency offering should be considered a security or not, which has grave regulatory implications. You can read the report here:
https://coincenter.org/entry/is-bitcoin-a-security
https://coincenter.org/entry/framework-for-securities-regulation-of-cryptocurrencies
That's how people in bitcoin space were hoping the issue would be handled. Just a few weeks ago any uncertainty about what regulators are thinking was cleared up when the SEC announced that they would use basically the same rules for deciding whether a crypto token is an unlicensed security offering. Notably they say that the DAO was a security, and presumably so was most if not all of the ICOs. You can read that report here:
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2017-131
What would it mean if the SEC decided that freicoin was a securities offering? Well, in the frightening worst case it could mean that those responsible for creating the currency (gulp, me and a few others) could be forced to pay exorbitant fines AND go to federal prison for decades of our lives, as well as prevent us from ever working in the financial industry ever again. Conceivably it might not even matter if those involved are US persons given the way the US uses extradition treaties to enforce its laws around the globe. So please, let's take this seriously.
(In case I frightened anyone too much, note that the SEC decided not to take action on the DAO, presumably because the regulatory situation was not clear at the time it was created. Now there's no excuse. The legal advice I received is that as long as we take proactive action to to make maximally sure we're in complicance, we should be okay. So as long as we take the actions I mention here, I'm still in this for the long run )
The gold standard for whether an offering is a security is the Howey test. Quoting the Coin Center page: "An investment contract for purposes of the Securities Act means a contract, transaction or scheme whereby a person . . .
  invests his money in   a common enterprise and is led to   expect profits   solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party Invests his money? Well people can buy freicoin on exchanges, does that count? Unclear. Certainly it would be bad if the Foundation (a kinda-sortof pre-mine) sold its coins to investors. If this were a regular proof-of-work mined only currency the answer would be no, but honestly the existence of the foundation complicates this in hard to determine ways. Whether freicoin meets this test is really up to the prejudices of the SEC, which I have no insight into. So let's assume yes, but things would be much better if the foundation ceased to exist and the coins it managed were destroyed (this precludes, for example, directly giving out the coins to existing holders).
A common enterprise? We're all here for demurrage money, right? Check.
Expects profits? Let's be honest, everyone expects the freicoin price to rise if/when it sees significant usage. I would like to say that as demurrage money the freicoin price will be stable and only used as a medium of exchange. But while that might happen in the future, we are not there yet. Someone investing in freicoin today is probably expecting a return, not actually using it themselves (yet).
Finally, expects those profits to come solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party. Here again the foundation rears its ugly head. I'm happy to say that since freicoin was created we ALWAYS had an idea of the foundation only being involved in the initial issuance and then disbanding, and not doing anything else. The foundation doesn't even pay for the official freicoin website -- I pay out of pocket for those negligible hosting costs. However the SEC will be judging not based on what the foundation does but what a reasonable investor might think they do. And I'm sorry to say there's a lot of misinformation out there. Would a reasonable investor think that the Freicoin Foundation is like, say, the Litecoin Foundation or Ethereum Foundation, both of which pay for both development work and promotion of the coin itself? I don't know.. and that worries me.
Both points (1) and (4) would be made SIGNIFICANTLY clearer if the foundation was unequivocally disbanded, and the funds it controls destroyed.
I think there are some concessions that can be reasonably made. Namely we promised 1:1 matching of charitable contributions, which we haven't delivered on. In fact, those donations are still sitting on keys controlled by the foundation. We can forward those funds and do a retroactive 1:1 matching, before destroying the rest of the coins.
The foundation has a few non-charitable causes listed on it. We'll have to figure out what to do with those. The original donations can obviously be forwarded, but I'm not sure we can reasonably match the contribution. We'll also have to figure out what we do with donations to the foundation itself -- both foundation and the freimarkets bounty fund.
I think we CAN'T do anything like distribute the coins to current holders. Destroying the coins is the same economically anyway, and much clearer intent in the eyes of regulators.
Finally, my own vote is for option number 1 (sorry!), but with a twist. I will separately be making some posts on this forum about my intention to release an elements-derived sidechain to freicoin that is proof-of-work mined (Rik, this addresses your comment from page 2, but is off topic for this thread). It is possible that we could, for example, allow pegs into this sidechain to be doubled in quantity 2:1 so that up to 50M freicoins can be moved from the old chain to the new chain, resulting in 100M on the other side. The new chain would also have its own subsidy so, if all goes well, there is a period of coexistence where both chains are used, until the peg pool is exhausted and the old chain is archived. We can quibble the details, but something LIKE this would allow us to maintain 100M total freicoins and achieve full issuance more quickly without the complications of a miner-incentive-reducing soft-fork.
In any case, the option 4 is just option 1 followed by a soft-fork. So can we at least say that we are in agreement to finish the donation matching, destroy the funds, then start a conversation about the best way to handle the mis-match between subsidy, demurrage, and the total monetary base? Even if you guys want to go with the soft-fork, which I respect, the coins can be destroyed first whereas the soft-fork requries some development and testing.

Damn... tought i had double vote ????

Hi there, @Adilado has already pointed out that a cool website is very useful to promote a coin, so i am looking for someone who can help me to find a good theme and set up the site the Site Solidar.it is under construction atm but i wanna make it look great again ;-). Maybe someone has some idea or links?

Well, that's as official as things get here. We got a majority of 'Yays' agreeing that Option 4 represents the communities choice for ending the foundation. So its done, decided. LET'S DO THIS!

Shocking 1.2 bln people are living on 2$ a day.. With a SLR price of 30 000$ we could pay everybody on the world 60$ basic income! #double #keepdreaming!
http://www.twodollarsaday.com/

Hi there, @Adilado has already pointed out that a cool website is very useful to promote a coin, so i am looking for someone who can help me to find a good theme and set up the site the Site Solidar.it is under construction atm but i wanna make it look great again ;-). Maybe someone has some idea or links?

Welcome to the worlds 1st super computer on the blockchain!

GURLS & GUYS, i have to say: BTC looking very bullish atm IF it breaks ATH the next week we will see an Altcoinparty like never before, fasten your seat-belts and hold your keys tight, its gonne be rough... PURE PUMP!

Hi there, @Adilado has already pointed out that a cool website is very useful to promote a coin, so i am looking for someone who can help me to find a good theme and set up the site the Site Solidar.it is under construction atm but i wanna make it look great again ;-). Maybe someone has some idea or links?

Oh me too. Just updating the wallet for a couple of weeks takes longer that the initial load a month ago. I think this has to do with the denial of service attacks. 
Apperently there is a 'fast load' method, but I don't think this makes a difference for recent attacks. I too gave up.
I will try 'fast load'. We have to figure this out so we can put Ethereum on the exchange. Honestly, I'm not sure how Ethereum can even function right now. I mean, my lap top has 12G of RAM and it can't update the wallet! To me, it's like Rick's animation ^^, a total car wreck.

GURLS & GUYS, i have to say: BTC looking very bullish atm IF it breaks ATH the next week we will see an Altcoinparty like never before, fasten your seat-belts and hold your keys tight, its gonne be rough... PURE PUMP!

yay

@Fabrizio, regarding the parameters for option 2, I too did ask if @jtimon could maybe share some thoughts on that. And thanks for presenting your ideas too--although I wanted to wrap this up. He has so far clarified: 1)funds to go through miners, not POS; 2) one of the reasons we want to end the Foundation is because no alternative method for distribution was developed by us, so we shouldn't pretend that we will developed one now, 3) the goal is to end the Foundation, not to create another one. So option one represents the maximum time to distribute the funds, option 4 thier complete destruction. I think your suggest kinda falls under (2), we haven't got the basic income up and running yet. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, But it may not materialize.
We could reasonably target having a round figure still of say 30 million. I think people reading Freicoin history will think, "they saw a problem and fixed it while still keeping that character of the coin the same."
anyway keep discussing, but let's aim to get this wrapped up soon.

'ay, fair points Bick. I'd like to see/hear more detailed visions of the future from both as well. Here on the forums or on the Freicoin website that is.. both have voiced some of their ideologies on some other mediums while discussing other topics, so they are out there for anyone who has been following their work  

I hope this isnt seen as stalling, but I'd like to see some discussion/opinions on the option 2 still though. Especially from jtimon, since it was his preferred choice. So @jtimon did you have some kind of schedule or scheme thought for this based on some ideals?

Thoughts for others: 100mil cap could be easier to psychologically accept for some people than the number that would be set after the fork. "Why is the supply this random number" -> research -> "Ohh, they changed it afterwards based on small number of votes" -> decrease in confidence.

A well planned schedule could also allow us to attract miners and users. If the rest of the coins would be made available for mining on certain date (for example 1.1.2018) and would be mined by end of 2018/2019/whatever, there could be time to get some of the Alliance mining and/or basic income projects up&running. This would in some aspects be kind of replacing Foundation with Alliance.. though the Alliance is holding some funds received from the foundation matching, so would also be a way to distribute them as well and ~correct the Foundations.. "mistakes" too.

It's not visable on the network so it is still stuck from my knowlege?

Fedde mentioned a Freicoin lottery, what if all demurrage went to the lottery pool instead of to miners, this could be fun for speculators/investors/holders and could raise interest in the coin

Will try and test this weekend.