I think this is a good idea in principle, but would like to address certain points that are not compatible with DACs in the form you have described.... it is very subtle to grasp, but important if you want to design successful DACs.

1) A DAC must motivate individuals to take initiative to lease buildings, install data centers that carry out the desired goals of the DAC without requiring any group of individuals to agree or revert to politics and elections. 

2) A DAC is not well suited to the storage of large amounts of data in the blockchain, but instead should incentivize individual actors to store data off-chain when ever possible.

3) The data requirements for a DAC must be well within reach of the average users' internet connection without making it unusable for other business.

I will start a new post describing the AdWords, DAC and identify the unresolved problems I have with its design because it shares many of the same issues as your YellowNotes, DAC.

Please define 'secured'?

We are integrating lessons learned from ProtoShares into a new experimental DAC that will address a lot of the issues and try them out.    If you would like to help build our next generation experiment we would love to work with you, but our social contract of honoring ProtoShares in the genesis block of all new chains is not something we are willing to compromise on.   Our next 'Test DAC' we believe will provide a very valuable service in a new market area while proving more ideas behind BitShares. 

We are going to release a Request for Proposals on this next DAC in the next few days.

Experiments are how we discover the right course forward.  The experiment you want to try is basically a control compared to other experiments.  You ask "Is it the vehicle (the cryptocurrency) or the social contract honored by a company that gives value to the thing?"

I think you will find that there are many speculative vehicles and your project offers nothing to differentiate besides fitting your personal criteria for fairness, but lacking the thing that made fair distribution something that even mattered, a purpose to hold (the social contract).

What about your coin is better than Litecoin?

Quote from: barwizi on November 20, 2013, 06:21:41 am

Quote from: bytemaster on November 20, 2013, 05:50:22 am

This would be in the block chain, not the miners.  Coin generation outputs would not be spendable as a valid transaction and no code modifications could change the rules without a hard fork.

I want to eliminate the MINE AND DUMP strategy, mining should only benefit those who are committed.  Think of paying an employee in stock options that must VEST.  You do not want to hire employees that leave, you want committed long-term employees who expect the options to go up in value.    This builds a very loyal base which will benefit by seeing the price rise over 6 months, rather than a disloyal base that just gets a free-handout while providing little value.   

Sure, many people who currently mine will stop mining and make room for new miners who have a long-term outlook.  Transfer coins from profiteers to supporters and THAT is the goal.

mass adoption is what we want, and this encourages mass exodus.

Mining and dumping is bad yes, but it's what we do to keep afloat financially, understand that most people that do this arent rich, only the rich can afford to do long term investments that have no guarantee. worse off when they know there are other coins that can keep the lights on. I understand where you are coming from but you need to rethink this in my opinion.

hahaha, i'm afraid in miners there is no loyalty  they are only loyal to what pays, as you have witnessed the hash swings based on the figures from Coinchoose and Coinwarz.

there are few such real supporters in comparison with profiteers, most are in it for the profit, some it's a hobby and a minority actually believe in it.  i'm in the first and last group, and i can tell you that the six month wait won't fly with me and my ilk. most would find a bitcoin to spare, hire a months' worth of instances and that's it, just fire and forget.  If not, they'll go mine something that gives them the money to spare and just do the above.

keep in mind you are saying that someone that joins in later will have to wait 6 months, so if i join in six months after everyone else, i'll be a year behind the first miners, no way people would go for that , with the way people are bitter about bitcoin already?

Ok, so you leave the coin... and that is FINE BY ME because you do not appreciate the future value.   Why should anyone who cares about BitShares give a hoot about people looking for a short-term payout?   Obviously you will return to the coin when you have a use for it and realize you could have made more money by holding than by selling.   The option for a quick payout for reduced reward is still there. 

The underlying assumption here is that without the 'miners' a coin has no value or no security.   I contend, that loyal miners will provide more than enough security especially if the DAC is providing USEFUL UTILITY and is not just a speculative play like all other alts.