Shhh! You'll frighten him away...

You know, to join the Masons, all you ever had to do was go find them and help out for a bit...then everyone just went off and did their own things...

MMC is kinda the same, except we're a bunch of internet forum trolls and geeks...

I mean, DwarfPool.com ?

I'm gonna have so much fun marketing that, just not sure whether to go D&D, Shadowrun, or Tolkien...

It's just that "bounty" is not the right word for mmc - we have kinda the opposite "do first, fund after" approach.

If you think of a vote in terms of game theory as "intent to move" (funds), we can basically do a proposal / bid / pledge system.  Users could move funds to an address, and vote for a task address as a "pledge" to pay. 

No guarantee you'll receive any pledges, especially if you don't show any progress, and would depend on address trust value (e.g., Officer, etc), but basically honor system crowd funding...

E.g.,:

1. Publish a working open source mining pool using getwork protocol.
Charity:  5,000 MMC
Pledge Address: Mxxxxxxxxxx

Transfer donation amount to new wallet and send 1 MMC Satoshi to Mxxxxxxxxxx to pledge donations upon completion.

This thread will provide a general site description and features requested by the community for MMCPOST.com.  See the thread below for overall project description:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2406.0

This is kind of..."let's see if we can use MMC to reverse-engineer Google Sign-in / "...everything seems familiar, except we're doing it a bit backwards...

Basically, we want to develop and demonstrate how a wallet ID could be used as a "universal sign-in" for social media sites, while also trying to organize some of the on-going community projects.  Votes from this wallet could be used as a "universal follow" method for existing social media interfaces. 

First, we plan to make a site to "re-base" all the on-going project information, "MMC-worthy" news, etc from community members to make it easier to navigate and organize by user profile.  Then, we can research and play with some of the social networking applications of MMC.

We'll have the typical "like / dislike" functionality for content rating, so users can vote to rank which project / content / etc other community members should focus on, and to "follow" other users.

The site would create a new MMC wallet as a "User ID" and the wallet would "vote" on the MMC blockchain when a user "follows" another user.  This way, users may voluntarily submit MMC address info to other sites and link followers at another site through the blockchain.  We plan to maintain content ratings on-site.  (Storing content ratings in the blockchain would result in excessive network load.)

This is basically using the MMC network as a universal sign-in and user-submitted cookies (bread-crumbs?) in the blockchain.  Except, personal info would be distributed and site-specific instead of controlled at a single central repository.  Sites could be designed with different market focuses, different registration requirements, and different rating values, yet still allow linking and following of MMC users across sites.

Please provide any comments or requests.  Below is a more formal write-up.

Community Procurement Specification

Objective: 

MMCPOST shall provide Execution, Network, and Marketing support functions.

Description:

MMCPOST shall function as a community development and networking site.    Officers, Candidates, Charities, Volunteers, and other community members may create or post links to off-site blog posts, trade offers, volunteer requests, community project proposals, MMC candidate campaign information, or other social networking user accounts.  Site shall allow users to rank content of other members and provide site navigation and search optimization based on content ranking.

A. User Profiles

Each user may maintain a site profile with content or off-site links for the following:

1. Blog - User posts of comments, suggestions, opinions, editorials, or news for the MMC
2. Storefront - User posts volunteering services to or offering services from other individual MMC members
3. Proposals - User-developed project proposals for community development or funding (Non-MVTE)
4. Campaigns - User-maintained campaign support pages for candidate projects (MVTE addresses)

B. Content Ranking

Site shall allow users to vote and/or rate content and links of other users.  Site shall provide search and navigation based on site ratings and/or MMC network ratings. Site shall maintain content ratings on-site.

Site shall allow users to "follow" another user.  Site shall create a new MMC wallet as a "User ID" for each user account.  The site wallet shall "vote" on the MMC blockchain when a user "follows" another user.  Users may voluntarily submit this ID to other sites and link followers through the blockchain. 

Overall, probably no real effect - the network will adapt - but I like discussing valuation.  From an economic perspective, still not sure I like this...though I probably would have made the same decision...

1) Was this put to a community vote?  This seems like one of those issues that we should have a formal community process for...like officers propose an amendment, assign a voting address and a voting window, community members & officers vote, officers store vote/address results independently in another blockchain to prevent future manipulation and allow independent verification...like maybe datacoin?

2) Tx fees aren't much right now, probably won't even be noticed.  And I know it's only an optional zero fee, but some users will choose it.  I know other coins have changed tx fees, but MMC's long-term outlook - economics, ability to meet manifesto, effect on current price, etc - should be much more sensitive to network transfer fees than other coins, and so should be given more review.

Even an option for zero fee means an impact on future long-term network revenue.  And even changing fees creates future price uncertainty by signaling that monetary policy can change arbitrarily.  (A formal community review and voting process would counter that...)

We just sent a strong market signal to value MMC relative to future fiat (i.e., network energy costs), rather than relative to future BTC/other cryptos.  MMC market volatility should increase in the short-term as beta with BTC/USD moves to unity.

3) Long-term, if you assume the MMC "product" is voting on the blockchain, and the cost of a vote is a tx fee, network revenue approaches network tx fees.  Especially as block rewards go down in the future.  Long-term, margin between network tx fees and electricity costs gives market incentives to mine and provides economic empowerment to meet the manifesto.  We've now reduced long-term mining margins, incentives, and empowerment. 

We used to assume a share's price was equal to the net present value of all discounted future earnings.  In this case, network transaction fees.  Any fundamental analyst, if there are any left, would expect share price to go down from a zero fee option.  The only counterargument is that current fees were inhibiting growth of services denominated in MMC, which does not seem likely.  That argument seems very similar to Dodd-Frank, cash for clunkers, QE, etc...

Seems like the officers just lowered future network earnings, reduced margins for future mining, and lowered future network security.  In the best-case, in an attempt to spur investment in short-term service development.  In the worst-case, counter to the manifesto and in a manner that could be considered fundamental price manipulation (vice technical market manipulation) and without shareholder consent? 

4) On a related note, I would like to know who was part of the 15,000+ MMC sell-off on bter overnight.

Most movements are probably obscured by bter wallet addresses, but maybe we can work backward and do some snooping.  Or we could leave private individuals' private finances private......Nah.

I'll throw down a 150 MMC tip for anyone who does a network analysis and writes up anything the blockchain can tell us about movements into or out of bter last night. 

Anyone else interested?

You have a coin of politics.  I could draw so many parallels to taxes, government, banking, mining unions...

Blunt Trauma (Newmine) - MVTEXFTv6FeMMqBhMSj9oucaBJBj5mTtda

I'm betting it will be a lot like the movie, There Will be Blood:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469494/

Oooh, I like the idea. 

The zero-config is possible, but much more difficult with a no data storage requirement (i.e., LiveCD).  Is the intent to make it easy for anyone to set-up a single machine for repeated mining, or to start mining an any machine one and only one time?

Easiest way is a LiveUSB and installing a new partition.  MMC could maintain shell scripts to autoinstall / configure everything else.  After first install, machine would auto-start into mining. 

Or, you could actually install onto a USB instead of HD (and instead of just a LiveUSB).  But an OS on a USB is sloooow...but, some minimal / custom distros like centOS or BAMT may fix that.

Would a LiveCD run into any memory / speed issues?

As far as network set-up:

I think I like the idea of a "Charity Officer" separate from the actual charity itself - an MMC community member who controls / campaigns for the MVTEcha address, while the charity itself signs up and publishes its own address, etc.  For accounting and network analysis, I think we should come up with some "standard" transfer practices.  I like the following:

1.  Charity Officer controls MVTEcha address and is principally responsible for funds.  May trade or broker with other MMC community members for goods or services under the direction of Charity Sponsor.  Any such funds do not require transfer to Sponsor address first.

2.  Any community funds received may be traded outside the MMC community by Charity Sponsor and/or Charity Officer.  Any such funds should first be transferred to the Sponsor address for traceability and accounting.

This may make things more productive in practice.  Plus, miners should be happy - every time we make it a practice to make an additional "accounting" transfer like this...we add a transfer fee to block rewards, right?

And, it may create an incentive to go volunteer since they would be new coins - you could use that as a trust / history metric.