jtimon

I'm sorry for not having responded for so much time. I still need to read the whole thread, but at a glance it seems clear that we can safely discard option 3. I need to read all the responses, thank you everyone for responding. But it seems option 4 isn't very liked either. And mark proposes another option related with his proposal. But I must admit I haven't fully reviewed and thus I don't fully understand his proposal yet. Mark, sorry one more time about that, I did promise you to do it. Having all the foundation funds in one output is fine with me. After all, if ma

So, regarding releases...should we keep working on 0.9 for the next release and also start working on a 0.15 rebase for the next after that one?

Well, first of all if one chain is planned to be abandoned after some 1wp period, some coins will get lost there. I don't see the point in doing any kind of peg between 2 currencies with different subsidies (money creation) in different chains. The 2:1 up to 50 M also seems pointless. I don't think another chain helps with the foundation problem in any way. Apart from that, I would prefer a hf to elements features or a spin-off (if we really want a new genesis block) than a one way peg. But I guess we can leave that for other threads.

> 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. This sounds, in principle, as a very bad idea to me.

My intention is not to "abandon the coin and let it die" but that doesn't mean maaku, me or any other voluntary should be bullied for using (or not) their time as a voluntary however they want. Please, @Arcurus stop telling other volunteers how they should spend their time. You are free to spend your own time however you want. When things don't happen as fast as you wanted them to happen (or just don't happen at all), don't blame other volunteers for not having done them: blame yourself for not having done more to make them happen. @Bicknellski volunteers that are developers don't have spe

It is to be expected that with a higher reward we just get an increase in hashrate and difficulty, and thus an increase in security (which currently isn't great due to the tiny reward), but not necessarily to miners' profits. This may have a temporary effect on the price, but I don't think it will be greater than with option 3. Option 3 also doubles the utxo size (well, more or less, discounting reused addresses). Again, option 4 (reducing block subsidy and thus the total 100 M supply) is not a hardfork, but a softfork.

> doesn't sound that great to me. its basically Bitcoin with demurrage for eternity to miners what @jtimon suggested. Yes, that was basically freicoin's design from the beginning. The foundation was a later mistake. > i strongly oppose not to look into proof of stake security I did look into pos, and I think it's flawed. But you are free to keep looking into it. > to the soft fork, that could be easy to implement, just add one address where some part of the block reward goes if less than 100K coins are on that and give control of the address to someone who does the

> So what is your vision for the coin moving forward Developers? My priority regarding Freicoin is starting to do rebases much faster and continuously, getting all the new improvements, bugfixes and features. As for new consensus changes features, apart from those included in more modern versions of bitcoin (cltv[bip65], csv[bip68/bip112], segwit[bip141]), it would be nice to get features from https://elementsproject.org/ which now also rebases periodically. Specially I would like to have confidential transactions https://elementsproject.org/elements/confidential-transactions/ and conf

> with the BTC from the ico, you pay the developers to work full-time on FRC and do promotion Which developers are interested in doing that? I'm not interested in beig paid by an ICO and I'm pretty sure maaku doesn't want that either. > Certainly, you know the issues surrounding coming regulation better than most. No, actually, I don't. But I never wanted to be paid from money collected through an "ICO" precisely because I don't know and I don't want to find out the hard way.

Re: ICO: no, as said icos are part of the motivation for destroying the foundation. You make an ico of frc for btc and then what you do with the btc? > a softfork that makes sure that some part of the block reward is used for Freicoin related projects. If we had the technology to do that we wouldn't need to destroy the foundation's coins. But we don't. > that demurrage should be drawn from there only and not from speculators/normal wallets. So basically remove the demurrage feature that inspired freicoin in the first place and makes it unique. I strongly oppose this. &g

Thanks everyone for sharing your views! > Woergl f.e. was the most successful freigeld currency and they used it to pay for social infrastructure. And IMHO it is the only reasonable purpose to redistribute money to the poor. The purpose of freigeld is not to redistribute money to the poor, but rather remove the existence of poverty under the assumption that is caused by chronic interest and cyclic monetary velocity. > option 2 is not fair to investors. I don't see why not. The coins were planned to be put in circulation either way. As "investor" I don't consider it unfair.

When Freicoin was launched, we thought the Freicoin Foundation could be a good way to use "excesive rewards to miners" for good causes and to promote Freicoin adoption. Since then, 3 of the people initially in the foundation have distanced themselves from the project (in part, because of the foundation), we haven't been able to keep up even with the matched donations distribution program, which also hasn't move towards a more decentralized implementation (like republicoin) and no other distribution programs have been implemented. I haven't been maintaining the website properly and

If I was to re-design Freicoin from the beginning I would change some small things, but it wouldn't look like this proposal at all.

I haven't read the whole post but I must say it is unlikely I will ever use, support or contribute in any way to an altcoin based on PoS. I also think that 1 min blocks and moving from demurrage to inflation are bad ideas. Since it seems to be based on different ideas and priorities I ask that please don't call this altcoin freicoin 2 and call it something else instead.

> i like freicoin but I don't see movements. When starts the party? anothers coins with + 3000%. Forget about the price. Freicoin is not about speculation.