A Possible Future with DPoS, etc.
-
You link to posts literally saying nothing other than that it’s been said, when it hasn’t.
No, I didn’t.
I linked you to posts where we explained that under no uncertain terms should this be considered a ‘plan’. I guess you didn’t read the posts I linked you to?
-
We’re discussing an idea for the future of Feathercoin.
Just wanted to add - because of what you are discussing - I, and everyone else on this forum, has the right to give their opinion on it. Which basically means - just so we’re clear - that as long as FTC is attached to your ideas in any way, shape or form, I do have say. As for what those ideas are outside of an FTC bubble - my opinions don’t matter - as you said. You are free to fork the coin and start KevlarCoin, have a KevlarCoin ICO, and try to build it from the ground up. And don’t worry - I won’t be part of the decision making process because I have no interest in it.
But as long as the FTC “brand” is attached to it, I can say whatever I want on here. And elsewhere. Because you will still need a consensus on the changes/new blockchain. And that’s an uphill battle you will have to take.
-
I’d love to hear your solution - and I also want to hear what you think the problems are. That’s all. No need to wrangle my words to try and make it seem like I’ve any weight on this issue in any way, because I think it’s apparent that that isn’t the case.
I’m also curious to know your plan for the ICO. What will the corporation be called? What state/country are you thinking of registering it? Who will sit on its board? Would love a prospectus too. Do you guys have underwriters retained? Legal counsel?
Yup - ICO = IPO.
We’ve been discussing it. What questions do you have about it?
We don’t have a plan for the ICO. The DAC hasn’t yet been named. DACs are borderless and regionless. The board is elected by the shareholders in real time. A prospectus will be provided with the ICO. Underwriters are not required in the model we’re considering. DAC’s have built in protection from those who would seek to regulate it so do not require legal council.
ICO is to IPO, as DAC is to LLC.
-
Just wanted to add - because of what you are discussing - I, and everyone else on this forum, has the right to give their opinion on it. Which basically means - just so we’re clear - that as long as FTC is attached to your ideas in any way, shape or form, I do have say. As for what those ideas are outside of an FTC bubble - my opinions don’t matter - as you said. You are free to fork the coin and start KevlarCoin, have a KevlarCoin ICO, and try to build it from the ground up. And don’t worry - I won’t be part of the decision making process because I have no interest in it.
But as long as the FTC “brand” is attached to it, I can say whatever I want on here. And elsewhere. Because you will still need a consensus on the changes/new blockchain. And that’s an uphill battle you will have to take.
Yes, you absolutely do have the right to give your opinion on it.
Your opinion does not entitle you to any specific rights, or powers. You do not, for instance, get to dictate to me or anyone else what code we write, what projects we peruse, or what solutions we explore.
You are drastically mistaken if you believe we need a consensus to do anything with the brand: We don’t. Anyone can launch a new wallet and call it Feathercoin. The market will decide on if that’s Feathercoin or not. We don’t need a consensus to do an ICO, we don’t need a consensus to launch a new blockchain, and we don’t’ need consensus of the community to make changes to the existing one either.
And if you don’t believe me, I’d ask you, kindly and respectfully, to demonstrate why I’m wrong without resorting to personal attacks. I’d ask that you demonstrate that you can stop me from doing anything at all, writing whatever code I want, calling it whatever I want, and that you can then stop the market from adopting that code and force them to not run it. I’d like you to demonstrate that the community has any power over the code I write, and the code the market runs and buys into. I would submit to you that while they may have a voice, they do not make decisions for the market, and that the market of millions that we’re expecting to reach with the service offering will be much louder and more vocal than anything anyone on these forums can muster. And at that point, the market will call it what it wants to, and you’re whole argument will have been made entirely pointless.
And once you’ve realized that what I’m saying is entirely true, I’d like to to go back and carefully re-read the part where I’ve stated over and over and over that I personally am not interested in doing ANY OF IT. Of all the possibilities I’ve just listed? I’m exploring exactly ZERO of them.
-
Bush patented Feathercoin name.
-
Well at least we agree on the same thing. When I say consensus, I mean adoption, because it’s pretty interchangeable when it comes to crypto. You’re absolutely right - you can do whatever you want and the market decides.
But I disagree with you about the brand consensus - if Mirrax is correct in the patent comment, you have some big issues.
The other issue is that as a community, we do have power when it comes to the brand - in ways you may not even imagine.
Your final sentence makes zero sense to me. Why discuss an ICO if you’re apparently not doing anything? I am seriously confused.
-
Bush patented Feathercoin name.
Show me the patent filing.
Do you know what a patent is? Do you know what’s required to enforce a patent?
Do you know what a trademark is? Do you know what’s required to enforce a trademark? Do you have any idea the legal costs of doing so? Do you understand you have to first prove damages in terms of lost revenue? Do you understand that you can’t enforce jurisdiction on a DAC using the legal system?
Seriously… When does the trolling end?
-
Well at least we agree on the same thing. When I say consensus, I mean adoption, because it’s pretty interchangeable when it comes to crypto. You’re absolutely right - you can do whatever you want and the market decides.
But I disagree with you about the brand consensus - if Mirrax is correct in the patent comment, you have some big issues.
The other issue is that as a community, we do have power when it comes to the brand - in ways you may not even imagine.
Your final sentence makes zero sense to me. Why discuss an ICO if you’re apparently not doing anything? I am seriously confused.
I too mean adoption, and when it comes to adoption, this community is a drop in the mist hanging over the bucket that we’re going to be spraying into with a fire hose.
Mirrax isn’t correct, [removed personal attack]
As a community, I’d LOVE to see you ACTUALLY exercise that power when it comes to that brand, since you’ve done SUCH a fantastic job so far… As a member of said community since the very first week of it’s inception I’d say I’ve got about as good an imagination as you.
Your final sentence makes zero sense to me. Why NOT discuss solutions to the problems the community is facing, regardless of what my personal plans are?
-
-
Ah, good. I just love it when you’re willing to go out of your way to make my point for me.
So, first question answered: No, there is no patent filing. No you don’t know the difference between a patent and a trademark.
How about the rest of my questions? Do you know what’s required to enforce a trademark? Do you understand the legal costs in doing so? Do you understand you have to first prove damages in terms of lost revenue? Do you understand that you can’t enforce jurisdiction on a DAC using the legal system?
Because if the answer is “No” then you’re merely ignorant and you should go do some more research before wasting my time again. But if it’s “Yes” then you’re a troll because you already know that none of it is applicable when dealing with DACs. Either way, this entire conversation is a gigantic waste of everyone’s time.
-
Ah, good. I just love it when you’re willing to go out of your way to make my point for me.
So, first question answered: No, there is no patent filing. No you don’t know the difference between a patent and a trademark.
How about the rest of my questions? Do you know what’s required to enforce a trademark? Do you understand the legal costs in doing so? Do you understand you have to first prove damages in terms of lost revenue? Do you understand that you can’t enforce jurisdiction on a DAC using the legal system?
Because if the answer is “No” then you’re merely ignorant and you should go do some more research before wasting my time again. But if it’s “Yes” then you’re a troll because you already know that none of it is applicable when dealing with DACs. Either way, this entire conversation is a gigantic waste of everyone’s time.
I do understand there is trademark theft going on and I will not stand by and observe.
-
Roger that! Fight that fight! Spin those wheels!!!
It’s not theft if there’s no damages [removed insult]
-
Roger that! Fight that fight! Spin those wheels!!!
It’s not theft if there’s no damages [removed insult]
bending terminology again?
-
Hey Kevlar, I know it’s nice to feel superior to everyone - but once in a while it’s also good to do a bit of double-checking on what it is you’re actually saying.
https://www.gov.uk/intellectual-property-crime-and-infringement
Cheers Mate!
-
No, [removed personal attack]
To have trademark theft, you have to prove that someone else was doing business using your trademark, and that it resulted in a loss of revenue for your company. Since Peter doesn’t have any revenue from FTC, this is a non-starter since anything we do will not result in financial loss.
What’s more is you have to prove that you have constantly defended that trademark against use dillution, which means that every single time a new product that mentions “Feathercoin” comes out, you have to get them to respect that little ™, or else lose your right to enforce it.
You see, you have NO idea how trademark law works. I do. I’ve been doing trademarks for corporations all my career.
-
Hey Kevlar, I know it’s nice to feel superior to everyone - but once in a while it’s also good to do a bit of double-checking on what it is you’re actually saying.
https://www.gov.uk/intellectual-property-crime-and-infringement
Cheers Mate!
I don’t feel superior at all. And thank you VERY much for linking to the reference material of what I’m describing. Everything I’m saying is in there in black and white.
-
“The Future of Feathercoin - FTC v2 (FT2)”
Can anyone tell me why FT2 is discussed in this thread as the future of FTC if it has absolutely nothing to share with it?
Kevlar says he isn’t interested to write code for FTC, doesn’t want its current block chain or anything else related. FT2 seems to emerge as a completely independent coin, DPoS based, ICO and/or PoB started, etc. I also see Kevlar’s reluctance to accept FTC for PoB on his new coin’s launch. Hence the whole point of this debate seems to seize the Feathercoin brand and a part of the community for this new project.
-
“The Future of Feathercoin - FTC v2 (FT2)”
Can anyone tell me why FT2 is discussed in this thread as the future of FTC if it has absolutely nothing to share with it?
Kevlar says he isn’t interested to write code for FTC, doesn’t want its current block chain or anything else related. FT2 seems to emerge as a completely independent coin, DPoS based, ICO and/or PoB started, etc. I also see Kevlar’s reluctance to accept FTC for PoB on his new coin’s launch. Hence the whole point of this debate seems to seize the Feathercoin brand and a part of the community for this new project.
I’m not reluctant. You can do whatever you want.
The solution just doesn’t work the same way if you do that. It doesn’t gain the same market adoption, it doesn’t have the same potential for valuation, and it can’t gain mass market adoption by artificially limiting your initial valuation. It’s fine if you want to do it, it’s just not going to result in much for all the reasons discussed endlessly in the Slack. You can totally do it. And then you’ll have the same 10 people voting to elect everyone else into power. I hardly see the point in that.
I don’t know were you got the idea that it ‘has absolutely nothing to share with it’. Do you understand what it means to provide complimentary services which have the potential to make the existing token more relevant and the existing blockchain more secure? Or did you skip over that part of the explanation?
This is NOT a debate. Well, at least there’s nothing that I’m debating. This is a question and answer opportunity. If you have questions, we’re happy to answer them. The point of it is to answer questions about the new models we’re exploring, not ‘sieze’ anything from anyone. Why do you keep repeating that lie?
-
Kevlar, you cannot start a new coin with a new block chain and claim the Feathercoin name if the current chain doesn’t die. You know it won’t die even if you allocate replacement coins in the new chain either by PoB or snapshot because I don’t think the majority will follow you.
You say this isn’t a debate. Well, you are here to convince everyone that your project is the way to go. If you fail here, everything else is futile and irrelevant. Let’s cut the [profanity] and get straight to your code and business plan. If you have none so far, the whole affair is a waste of time.
-
You say this isn’t a debate. Well, you are here to convince everyone that your project is the way to go. If you fail here, everything else is futile and irrelevant. Let’s cut the [profanity] and get straight to your code and business plan. If you have none so far, the whole affair is a waste of time.
I’m glad I’m not going insane with the logic warping going on here. Putin would be proud.
