BitShares Forum
Other => Graveyard => MemoryCoin => Topic started by: Delinquency on January 22, 2014, 07:10:32 am
-
Use your BTC to make a buy order above the highest bid price.
Move all of your MMC out of bter.
Move it to a personal wallet.
export that wallet to a USB flash drive or Disc.
Now save the address and put it away in a safe place.
Point your miners to the address.
delete the wallet.dat on your PC and then create a new wallet. ( your old wallet is saved)
So now, you are not a seller of MMC, you are "buying" MMC by sending all your mined MMC to this saved wallet.
This is how you can raise the price.
Oh, and you can also pledge not to sell MMC for 1 year.
inb4 Prisoner's dilemma, oh well oh well :(
-
Any "information" or "quality" we can assign, maintain, or trust at an address, the greater the potential value in the right application, and the better overall network data we can give BTChris.
Keep exchange funds, officer funds / payments, and mined funds in separate wallets. They may be worth more to different services / merchants / etc.
For example, I could see these categories:
1. Proof Address - Address which only receives new coins - pools / solo miners / Officers.
2. Mint Address - Address which is 1 entity (person / company / etc) away from proof Address - Officer "contractors" / pool miners.
3. Near Mint Address - Address whose chain of custody is traceable to a Mint Address
4. Circulated Address - Address whose chain of custody is not traceable to a Mint Address - e.g., exchange bought funds
There's already enough mixing methods (e.g., coinjoin) if you want those, but there are also uses for not mixing. If you mix mined and exchange-bought funds in one address, you can't really prove which are which anymore, and you'd lose any additional "Mint condition" value in the future.
For example, it may be more valuable to prove "I mined these" than have no proof and have someone only buy at "circulated" prices...or someone offering services for only mint addresses / etc.
(Or, in political terms - officers are government employees union, miners are manufacturing / financial union, merchants are service employee / developers union - and if we can identify / assign / trace funds to their addresses, we can tailor services to specific members)
-
Any "information" or "quality" we can assign, maintain, or trust at an address, the greater the potential value in the right application, and the better overall network data we can give BTChris.
Keep exchange funds, officer funds / payments, and mined funds in separate wallets. They may be worth more to different services / merchants / etc.
For example, I could see these categories:
1. Proof Address - Address which only receives new coins - pools / solo miners / Officers.
2. Mint Address - Address which is 1 entity (person / company / etc) away from proof Address - Officer "contractors" / pool miners.
3. Near Mint Address - Address whose chain of custody is traceable to a Mint Address
4. Circulated Address - Address whose chain of custody is not traceable to a Mint Address - e.g., exchange bought funds
There's already enough mixing methods (e.g., coinjoin) if you want those, but there are also uses for not mixing. If you mix mined and exchange-bought funds in one address, you can't really prove which are which anymore, and you'd lose any additional "Mint condition" value in the future.
For example, it may be more valuable to prove "I mined these" than have no proof and have someone only buy at "circulated" prices...or someone offering services for only mint addresses / etc.
(Or, in political terms - officers are government employees union, miners are manufacturing / financial union, merchants are service employee / developers union - and if we can identify / assign / trace funds to their addresses, we can tailor services to specific members)
I'm sorry it's hard to figure out your main point.
You say minted coins should be more valuable?
The market cares less about that with 10 million coins to be in circulation.
I like the part about 'tracing' coins. Officers should indeed have a clean wallet and the community should care about the actions committed with the coins.
The coins can easily be scrubbed a few times to prevent tracing. Then again, the dev probably wanted circulation when thinking of the 10million coin limit.
Getting off topic here: we're thinking of ways on how to raise the value of MMC.
-
What if someone said this:
I will trade GPUs at 10% off if paid from an address that pays me in mined MMC. Full price if MMC comes from an exchange.
-or-
I will hire you to mine MMC for me. Give me an MMC wallet address, ID, and utility bill, send any MMC you mine to me, and I will pay you in fiat, merchandise, right back in btc...etc.
You need to trust me to honor the trade, which comes from "reputation" of the address you're sending to. Reputation comes from trust of others. Community trusts officers the most, next would be addresses the officers pay out to, "long-timer" accounts with high MMC-days accumulated, etc. Reputation essentially increases in-network purchasing power. Other MMC users may offer you discounts on services, etc for higher rep addresses.
_______________________
Anyways, withdraw from exchanges and post your addresses to start accumulating rep.
-
Well rep in this coin is designed to increase voting power.
However - don't get me wrong, the officers are great and all, I'd also suggest spoiling the votes in order to raise value. I think we need a system in place that squeezes every last bit of MMC out of them so that they can provide a higher quality of work.
Maybe the community can develop a system to spoil votes on certain elections in order to squeeze them into a higher valuation of the coin.
ex. every block fully divisible by 3: spoil. or every 5 blocks, etc.
I don't mind giving them contributions from mining but sometimes they make too many coins for simple, ordinary tasks. And they give away coins to others for doing even more simple, ordinary tasks.
-
If you are a miner and care about the price going up then simply stop selling into buy orders and move your sell order up along with buy orders that will inevitably move up trying to get people to sell into them.
Ive noticed the effect happening quite quickly, when there is a big gap between sell and buy price, the buyers after just a few minutes move their buy order up just under the lowest sell order and this effect causes outside buyers to simply buy whatever the lowest sell order is.
Rinse and repeat, move sell orders up and dont sell into buy orders.
Right now it seems that most of the potential sellers on bter is mining or active on this forum, the price will move up as long you dont satisfy the rediculously cheap buy orders proposed atm.
-
Traders / Businesses / Merchants / etc aren't affected as much by market price, since they can typically just base their product prices in fiat and convert to MMC.
Miners are affected more by market price, since that is their product price. But mining in general, and some miners in specific, will just sell at whatever price (free coinz!) until it stops being worthwhile...that's always the long-term battle the network is facing.
But, yes - we could definitely benefit from having a group of miners come forward and say "look, I'm mining and not selling"...or having merchants / etc come forward and say "look, I bought these funds and plan to use them for X"...or "look, I will give miner's a discount on services instead of them selling on exchange." Any of those would raise confidence and/or sink miner funds to lower downward exchange pressure.
I created another thread to discuss possible "pro-miner / pro-price" business models or services we could come up with.