Bitcoin Forum

This is just to get a feel for the altcoin communities feelings in this issue as it is being discussed in various coins at the moment.

Feel free to post a more detailed answer or suggest more / better options and I'll add them.

Thanks for the votes. Would be great to hear your reasons?

Do you think artificially lowering the number of total coins unfairly favours early adopters? Would this stop you investing?

I think this is a good idea but not many devs do it as you can see, they seem to like the raising the supply threw POS.

One coin which i know is reducing supply in future is XCP / counterparty and they are introducing smartcontracts that cost XCP each time a contract is made, there is no more xcp to be mined so this coin will become extremely rare.

It is a fair way i guess as if you do not want to make a contract then you do not pay for one, those who do not still benefit from others who will and the reduce in supply should mean the value rising.

Yes and yes.

Darkcoin is one such scam

What is the Argus-Nemesis? Never heard of it.

The development of an altcoin should be determined by community consensus ...I feel. Give the people what they want.


Shameless plug >>> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/goldcoin-the-future-of-digital-currency/x/4815996

It's done in the code. If there is a consensus within the community, a coin's developers can adjust the block reward/inflation rules.

It favours early adopters, instamines and premines. I think the worst thing you can do with a coin is changing the rules. Lets see some examples:

Darkcoin: It had 2 million of coins mined in 2 days. This would be just ~3% of all supply, at the time, 80 million. But later they decidedd to cut to 21 million. So, who had mined in the first 2 days was prized again. Maybe 3% off al the coin supply days can't be called an instamine, but when they decided to cut the supply, they created an instamine scheme. Also, they changed the scheme of rewarding the masternodes and miners again lately.

Ultracoin: they did this reducing the block reward at the time from 50 to 15. This didn't have any good effect at the price. Anyway, the intention  clearly was to protect early adopters.

Reddcoin: initially was a POW coin. Lately they decided to change to POS. I think this is a way to say: fuck you, miners.

Pandacoin: the same case of Reddcoin. A trick to say they have resistance against ASICs.

Feathercoin: this coin didn't change the supply, but instead the decided to change the algo. They changed the algo to NeoScrypt just to avoid Scrypt ASICs. Changing the rules of mining is really dangerous. They lost a lot of hashing power, turning it more vunerable to a 51% attack. Also, the price dropped. Even worse, they this did only in last October, at a point where Srypt ASICs were already consolidated.

Vertcoin: originally a Scrypt-N coin, lately changed to Lyre2RE when the first Scrypt-N ASICs started to appear. Price dropped hard.

The name of this is cheating. When you enter in the game and you win the game, everything is fine. But when you start to lose the game because the market or mining conditions aren't favorable to you anymore,  you go to change the rules of mining in your favor.

BTW, I'm convinced the promising of ASIC-resistance is a bad idea.

Great question. I guess it would be determined by the fork. If a developer made a change that was unwelcome, the majority could abandon the new fork rendering the update null.

Goldcoin has no plans to change the coin rules. In my view, changing the rules would not be advantageous now or at any point in the future.

.

Yes. Yes. In addition such action would be considered as sign of a pump and dump.

imagine how scammy this scheme gets if they would also add something that gives out interest when people hoard coins! now the instaminers can slowly offload (drk i am looking at you)

i think that if a coin is published some features should not change or it is like betraying your investors. this includes pow or pos, max coins, time between blocks - everything which changes the money supply or the way coins are generated should be kept fixed (i dont think block size matters though).

if a dev really wants to make a few changes he should just fork his own coin into a new one and initialize it with the blockchain from his original coin. that way his investors can decide which route to follow.

It is a shame voting is closed already.
It is working for some coins (i.e. Gridcoin)

Says the coin that dropped mining rewards from 500 to 50 lol ironic you are in this thread...

LOL says the man who completely controls who is in his coin's community, censoring all those who don't agree  :o

I always assumed microguy was on bitcointalk purely for entertainment purpose  8) nothing else makes sense.