I like where you are at giving further incentive to use the network. I was one of the first 1 million paypal accounts created. So I started using paypal from the very start.

What they did was give 1.5% cashback to use the card. What this did was make you pull out your paypal card over your visa, debit, ect. What that did was get attention from every clerk I came up to. Some of the first ones actually had to double check to make sure it was a real card. But you know what? I kept using it everyday, for everything. In my time using the card I know impressions where made and people remembered Paypal.


We need to figure out a way to get VeriCoin as a preferred payment method for merchants. Using technology others are scared to use in our wallets, and creating brand awareness are 2 of the keys to our success.

Make a "POM" code to add in or something "Proof of Merchant" Perhaps small incentives could be given from the network to support this, and that could help with mainstream adoption. As this would give a true incentive to have VeriCoin over X-shitcoin  Maybe we could hash into the algo, a % of coins go directly to the merchant pool accepting VeriCoin. Then use this pool in somehow to promote vericoin.


Or perhaps, every time you make a purchase with vericoin you "hash" a attempt at free vericoin from the network? Ideas from more technically capable people?

I would use the same address. There's no benefit to using multiple addresses.

I do (somewhat hesitantly) believe that the recent rollback was the right thing to do, but only because the coin is still very immature. I doubt very much that I'd support a rollback in the future, however.

I think the majority of the people are willing to accept that, during its infancy (prior to being widely distributed and used) a coin may encounter a crisis situation that requires drastic measures to resolve; measures that would never even be considered once the coin is more mature. From what I have seen, it's mostly the extreme crypto die-hards (along with a few mindless lemmings) that aren't willing to accept this; unfortunately, these people also happen to be the most vocal.

This MintPal hack/theft has happened just two short months after VeriCoin was created. The coin is not yet widely distributed and there are only a small handful of vendors that accept it directly (non of which had any transactions between the time of the theft and the time of the rollback). The blockchain shows that there were minimal transactions between the time of the theft and the time of the rollback. The rollback simply did not impact many people beyond the annoyance of having to install a new wallet.

Once VeriCoin is more mature, more widely distributed, and directly accepted by numerous vendors, the daily volume will be much higher. Under these conditions, such a rollback would have extremely negative ramifications; it'd be a very bad idea, IMO.

On the other hand, with the wider distribution, it's pretty unlikely that we'd see an accumulation of 8 million coins in a single wallet...

Despite the fact that I also like the idea, we have to take into account that paying with VRC is the same as transferring from an address to another address. This means that I could set 2 wallets and spend the day transferring coins from one to the other.

It can't be compared to paypal or CC because those paying methods charge a higher fee per transaction.

But the concept of creating an incentive is valid. It's just a matter of finding the right way to accomplish it.

To be a merchant partner perhaps we would need some sort of verification legal framework to set up. This is a thing most cryptos would cringe upon. But, in the world of business, its something that is required for them. So what do we do if we want to go mainstream? We have to cater to business and the framework that surrounds them. If a business needs x amount of security, we need to have it. If a business needs incentives to get them to use it, we need to figure out a way to give them the incentives they require.

I like where this convo is headed. Debate and constructive criticism is very welcome.

Check out VRCRadio.com, I've taken over and I am taking questions!!

Well, I guess there's no place for a "registered" account in a pure P2P environment. I could easily set up a registered account and receive coins in this account and then transfer them to another one and back to the registered one. There's no escape from this when the cost is lower than the incentive. So, the key is to statistically ensure that the combined cost for forging transactions is smaller than the possible incentive. This would work just fine.

Imagine a world where VeriCoin is a big as Bitcoin currently is. A rollback in such a world would directly affect tens of thousands of people (if not more). Hundreds of stores/online shops/travel agencies/etc would suddenly lose the currency that they received for merchandise delivered/services rendered. It'd be a disaster.

I'm sure there is a better solution than that. It would be nice if the incentives outweighed the transaction fees in the long term, such that there is a real incentive for people to use the coin. The potential for exploitation could be alleviated by adding some restrictions on when coin would have a chance at earning new coin, ie mature coins only, only to registered merchants, only once transaction per day per coin etc. Enough restrictions like this would make it not worth it for people looking to exploit the system, but would still encourage regular users to choose Vericoin for the hope of earning a reward.

Incentives could be concentrated, like a lottery. For example: every 100,000 transaction would participate in a draw that would pay 50% of the collected fees (many scattered prizes that collectively sum up 50% of the transaction fees).