A Possible Future with DPoS, etc.
-
back to the OPs topic,
why list a new ICO coin under the ftc brand?
its not like the world doesn’t have enough shitty ICO coins? and if you’re so into making a new coin why not just go along your own merry way and make one? why involve the ftc brand? (btw brands ur wording not mine)
because it has value in name already, isnt it obvious?
-
If anyone wants to dump feathercoins ,Now’s the time. Cryptsy or Bittrex
why
-
because it has value in name already, isnt it obvious?
but don’t you think it could also bring extra value to the ftc,
-
yes, a body , but also valuable
-
but don’t you think it could also bring extra value to the ftc,
Yes of course but ATM I see 90% threat and 10% potential benefit.
-
Yes of course but ATM I see 90% threat and 10% potential benefit.
Care to explain why you think that adding extra services to the feathercoin brand spells doom?
-
because it has value in name already, isnt it obvious?
well yes i know, but just asking them, an ICO under the ftc brand is extremely bad for ftc as if it wasnt bad enough the founding dev working on bolliwood coin, now have the current devs work on an ICO. :o
-
well it could beneficial to FTC
and maybe its time to have new FTC team willing to propose real change…constructive oneWe desperately need new people to get involved. I think Kevlar has proposed an exciting future to aim for. The most exciting project since… Well… Ever?
I’m struggling to find reasons not to push for this!
Why not?
-
well yes i know, but just asking them, an ICO under the ftc brand is extremely bad for ftc as if it wasnt bad enough the founding dev working on bolliwood coin, now have the current devs work on an ICO. :o
Any counter suggestions? I’d love to hear more thoughts on this.
-
well yes i know, but just asking them, an ICO under the ftc brand is extremely bad for ftc as if it wasnt bad enough the founding dev working on bolliwood coin, now have the current devs work on an ICO. :o
+1 exactly, thats why I called this parasitic behavior
tiny chance to success, huge possibility to drag both chains to death.
@Dave - even fuzzy rightly pointed out that even if BC2 survive than BC1 will probably slowly vanish to oblivion.
So if BC2 fails = BC1 is just a joke
If BC2 succed = BC1 end probably even worst than in first case
Now we have well recognized BC1 with valuable name. The hell it is one of the first coins.
You are still talking about adding value to FTC brand.
In fact it is nothing else than brand theft.
Make your own blockchain, forget about FTC.
-
well yes i know, but just asking them, an ICO under the ftc brand is extremely bad for ftc as if it wasnt bad enough the founding dev working on bolliwood coin, now have the current devs work on an ICO. :o
Once again a bunch of non-arguments against an ICO.
I’ve stated 4 reasons for doing an ICO, and several examples of them that are not ‘extremely bad’, but in fact ‘extremely good’. Kelsey has listed a bunch of non-arguments against it, and Ghostlander has pointed out that some people leverage it into a scam.
What exactly would you like to know beyond the reasons listed for doing an ICO?
-
+1 exactly, thats why I called this parasitic behavior
tiny chance to success, huge possibility to drag both chains to death.
@Dave - even fuzzy rightly pointed out that even if BC2 survive than BC1 will probably slowly vanish to oblivion.
So if BC2 fails = BC1 is just a joke
If BC2 succed = BC1 end probably even worst than in first case
Now we have well recognized BC1 with valuable name. The hell it is one of the first coins.
You are still talking about adding value to FTC brand.
In fact it is nothing else than brand theft.
Make your own blockchain, forget about FTC.
I’m not sure how you add this one up. Same people, same community, new chain, different type of services in addition to our existing ones. How is using the same brand to launch new services under those conditions brand theft?
It’s because it’s Kevlar right? I’m guessing Peter could do it yeah?
-
+1 exactly, thats why I called this parasitic behavior
tiny chance to success, huge possibility to drag both chains to death.
@Dave - even fuzzy rightly pointed out that even if BC2 survive than BC1 will probably slowly vanish to oblivion.
So if BC2 fails = BC1 is just a joke
If BC2 succed = BC1 end probably even worst than in first case
Now we have well recognized BC1 with valuable name. The hell it is one of the first coins.
You are still talking about adding value to FTC brand.
In fact it is nothing else than brand theft.
Make your own blockchain, forget about FTC.
As is usual, you’re a [removed personal attack]
You’ve used the size of your own [removed personal attack] understanding to measure our chance of success, and arrived at the conclusion that it’s tiny.
You then presented this completely uninformed opinion as fact without stopping to understand what the actual ‘failure’ scenarios in the model look like.
You then went on to extrapolate that because an ICO fails, people stop mining a blockchain for ROI. Of course this isn’t true.
You said if BC2 fails, that means that the technical merits of the first blockchain are bad. [removed personal attack] Miners mine a blockchain for ROI, not because a new blockchain which they CAN’T mine comes along.
You said if BC2 succeeds, that means the first block chain ends even worst than the first. Now you’re a BIGGER idiot. We’ve described over and over how the new BC adds complimentary services that add additional value.
Quit with the trolling.
-
Mirrax, I’m trying to understand you here. What are you conditions before you’ll support this. That BC1 dies and is replaced with BC2 and people get to swap coins for shares? That seems a lot more destructive than anything else proposed so far.
-
Mirrax, I’m trying to understand you here. What are you conditions before you’ll support this. That BC1 dies and is replaced with BC2 and people get to swap coins for shares? That seems a lot more destructive than anything else proposed so far.
It’s not only destructive, it’s doomed to failure. You can’t gain mass market adoption going that route. You’re just dooming your entire community and blockchain to the same stagnation problem it currently faces.
That’s part of why this is so frustrating. We’ve spent a LOT of time coming up with a well reasoned solution and all the right arguments for that solution. Then [removed insult] who have repeatedly expressed a complete inability to understand the solution start making changes to it without addressing any of the reasons the solution was structured like that in the first place, and suddenly we’re no longer discussing a solution, we’re explaining to idiots why a non-solution won’t work.
It’s not productive. It’s just trolling.
This ISN’T a productive way to solve this problem. It could be, but we have to ignore the [removed insult] that would keep dragging it off topic.
-
The only way this conversation moves foward is if we stop lending credence to lies.
It’s a lie that one BC dictates the technical merits of another BC.
It’s a lie that miners would stop mining one blockchain when a new one which they can’t mine arrives.
It’s a lie that the fate of any two blockchains is tied together by a brand, and that one technology failing means all technology from that brand is doomed to failure.
It’s a lie that the chance of an ICO being successful is tiny.
[removed personal attack]
Please, I beg of you. Don’t give any more air time to lies. From here on out, rather than include those lies in the conversation, just ignore them.
-
This may come across as salty - but it’s my thoughts.
Kevlar, I listened to your webcast yesterday, and I’ll be honest that it didn’t actually really “say” anything. Here’s what I think a lot of people are curious to know:
What are the new changes/ideas proposed, how they will be implemented, and WHY they are being implemented as such? In detail, concisely, clearly with no [removed profanity] historical allegories.
So for example, the ICO - you gave four very abstract reasons for it that, personally, sound very scammy. I want to know the who, what, why, how and where. What will the funds be allocated for? I don’t see a business plan at all - it’s just, throw your money at us for these here new tokens that are going to ‘provide services in competition with Bitcoin’ etc. etc.
I want to know what the motives are.
I mean, it doesn’t add up - why adopt a well known, albeit stagnating brand [FTC], for an essentially new coin, with an ICO? Why not just start from scratch and finally launch KevlarCoin? I see absolutely no good reasons to do so other than to potentially scam people out of money. I’m sorry - but that’s just how it feels and sounds to me. What will the ICO funds be used for? Who will be in charge? Why should we trust it?
Finally, I don’t want to sound negative, but I think it’s time we look at the reality of the situation - and that is, in the large spectrum of the crypto-currency ecosystem, FTC is essentially a dead technology. And I really, honestly don’t understand what the “new” changes/ideas are aiming to provide to the large ecosystem that isn’t already there. How will FTC 2.0 innovate? Do you, Kevlar, have the will to see the changes through? And can those that support the ICO trust you?
I feel like the proposed changes are just experimentation that will most likely end up with more people getting burned. And to be frank, Kevlar, I don’t like the way you go about pushing your ideology. You shout the loudest and the angriest. It smells.
-
This may come across as salty - but it’s my thoughts.
Kevlar, I listened to your webcast yesterday, and I’ll be honest that it didn’t actually really “say” anything. Here’s what I think a lot of people are curious to know:
What are the new changes/ideas proposed, how they will be implemented, and WHY they are being implemented as such? In detail, concisely, clearly with no bullshit historical allegories.
So for example, the ICO - you gave four very abstract reasons for it that, personally, sound very scammy. I want to know the who, what, why, how and where. What will the funds be allocated for? I don’t see a business plan at all - it’s just, throw your money at us for these here new tokens that are going to ‘provide services in competition with Bitcoin’ etc. etc.
I want to know what the motives are.
I mean, it doesn’t add up - why adopt a well known, albeit stagnating brand [FTC], for an essentially new coin, with an ICO? Why not just start from scratch and finally launch KevlarCoin? I see absolutely no good reasons to do so other than to potentially scam people out of money. I’m sorry - but that’s just how it feels and sounds to me. What will the ICO funds be used for? Who will be in charge? Why should we trust it?
Finally, I don’t want to sound negative, but I think it’s time we look at the reality of the situation - and that is, in the large spectrum of the crypto-currency ecosystem, FTC is essentially a dead technology. And I really, honestly don’t understand what the “new” changes/ideas are aiming to provide to the large ecosystem that isn’t already there. How will FTC 2.0 innovate? Do you, Kevlar, have the will to see the changes through? And can those that support the ICO trust you?
I feel like the proposed changes are just experimentation that will most likely end up with more people getting burned. And to be frank, Kevlar, I don’t like the way you go about pushing your ideology. You shout the loudest and the angriest. It smells.
I can tell you didn’t listen to it. In it I did ‘say’ what technologies are available for addressing these problems. That was the entire point.
I see you’ve not read any of the conversation leading up to this. Please go back and read it. These questions and many others have been asked and answered repeatedly.
If you feel like the ‘proposed changes’ are just experiments, then you’ve been listening to the wrong people entirely since I’ve not proposed any changes. Please go back and read that, I’ve said it over and over.
These things have been proven in the market and are presently competing for the top of the market cap list. Please try and understand that: You can’t dismiss something as theoretical or experimental if it’s competing for market cap with Bitcoin. That moves it firmly into the realm of ‘real’, ‘practical’, and ‘proven’.
If you think I’ve pushed idelogy, then you’re failed to understand a single thing I’ve said, since nothing I’ve spoken of is ideological in nature, it’s purely practical.
And if you see no good reason, then you’ve not read anything we’ve said here, because we’ve listed tons.
I have no idea why the reasons companies do IPO’s would sound scamy to you. Was the Intel IPO a scam?
-
…
-
Kevlar, I just read over the thread - still missing key information. I want to see a business plan, or something akin to it. Essentially - you’re really great at inflating your role in this “project”, its greatness, but don’t really show any real empirical or concise reasons for why that is.
Finally, comparing an Intel IPO to a fucking alt-currency ICO is just really desperate muddling of reality. They are not to be even considered to be similar. And you should know that.
