http://ultra2.nitro.org/
Is working perfectly!!!
I've maxed out and I'm hardly reaching 1,4MH/s! All my other rigs are rented.  

btw no need to thank me, I am trying to support the coin, in the face of some bumfaces that called me a troll and etc, but I won't do it forever...  


P.S. Can't someone launch a DDOS attack to ultracoinpool!!!

I think UTC forked.

EDIT: Yes, it's forked. The whole network is not working properly.

Given today's dump, I think this is an attack.

The Minecraft plugin is a very specific project.
Our Devs are just started building at it but it is a project that needs time.
So yes. Minecraft is still in the pipeline and one of our major projects.

Dear UTC Community Members,

We still have some serious bountys waiting for anybody who can do the job....

- Android Mobile Wallet                     15000 UTC
- iOS Mobile Wallet                           15000 UTC
- Android-Ultracoin Game                    5000 UTC
- iOS Game Ultracoin                           5000 UTC
- Windows Phone Ultracoin Game         5000 UTC
- Twitter Tipper Bot                             5000 UTC
- Google + Youtube Tipper Bot             5000 UTC

About full PoS; We listen to our community!

What we wanted was successful.
Start an open “discussion” on the forum and see the pros and cons.
Our plan was to look in the background what happened and what was the general opinion.

We want to thank everyone for their input, their ideas and their opinions and want to thank also especially some members of their very professional input about full PoS.

Of course, there were also the frequent and useless trollers that where trying to sell complete garbage, fud, lies and even false accusations.
Members who wanted to impose their views on to others with accusations like we only wanted to produce a pump and dump so we could sell big and many other false accusations. 
We will not even mention them all here because we don’t want to answers to such low and false accusations. 

Just to be clear to everyone in our respected community, we are here for the long term and we believe in UTC 100%. UTC is a coin that will remain and will be a real used currency.

So after having read all the opinions and idea’s we will consult first some valued members/coin-devs furthermore by pm to see if there is a better way that will benefit UTC in the long-term.

Bottom-line: We listen to our UTC community and postpone until further notice our plan to go full PoS !

Sit tight in the mean time and please work as a community to get UTC going!

Regards ,
UTC Management

+100

Scrypt-Jane was a specific implementation of Scrypt-Chacha with pre-programmed N-Factor changes, and fundamentally my problem is that they were poorly chosen. Now we're at the point where things are slowing down, but it's also "too difficult" to get miners up and running, so only those that got in early are still worried about mining UTC. Really, can you imagine anyone new to the cryptocurrency scene saying, "Oh, look at UTC -- I wonder how I can get set up to mine at NF-13?" They can do Scrypt, X11, X13, etc. and mine any of a couple hundred coins, whereas Scrypt-Jane requires tweaking parameters for just one coin (or at least on N-Factor). It's a major pain in the butt! Scrypt-N is practically the same algorithm but with NF changes more widely spaced; in January the first Scrypt-N coin will move to NF-11, and most of the difficulties with that N-Factor are now known; the next change will be in another year or more, so SJ gets to pave the way with little reward for doing so.

The ironic thing is that all of this was done to "protect us from the evil ASICs", and yet I'm not even convinced ASICs are the real enemy here. This has become a big business, and that means the small fries (you, me, and anyone else that can't invest millions of dollars) are probably just lucky to have gotten in early enough to have made some good earnings. I don't think we'll actually see a fully functional Scrypt-N ASIC in a time frame that will be profitable for the buyers, but the manufacturers of the ASIC will still make money -- or just scam people and disappear with the coins they're paid. But how do you stop that from happening? Government oversight, laws, regulations, etc. are all things that BTC was trying to avoid early on, yet now we're trending more and more towards having all of them. Oops.

As far as PoS goes, it was basically designed as a way to reduce power requirements while keeping the network secure from a 51% attack, and it does well in that regard. The problem is that it doesn't encourage use of a coin, and there are all sorts of weird things that go on with PoS coins like scaling of the interest rates, or poor coding (cloning of a poorly coded implementation), etc. The rewards are also terribly stingy on many coins (Blackcoin), so if the idea is to have people leave the wallet running 24/7 to support the network, there needs to be a real incentive to do so. This fad that started with BC where it's somehow better to distribute all of the coins in a one week period and then shift to PoS strikes me as a huge money grab as well. At least UTC would have been around for a long time before making the switch, but of course it's going to require a hard fork again and people will get upset about fundamental changes to the design of UTC.

Really, in retrospect (yes, I know: hindsight is always 20/20), UTC was not designed properly. I can say the same of many coins, including BTC and LTC, but what's done is done. Block reward halving is convenient in terms of knowing the block reward for long periods of time, and it doesn't necessarily reward the first miners with the most coins, but slowly scaling down (e.g. sort of like DRK, though it could still be improved) seems better. Fast NF adjustments -- ever -- is just chaotic. As someone that mined a bunch of the SJ coins when they were new, almost every NF change would cause issues on every mining PC I have. The power efficiency issue is also real -- I have given up on Scrypt-N and anything else above NF-10 for that reason, and of course vanilla Scrypt is now in the domain of the Scrypt ASICs. And as for the block times... they're just too short, as I noted already.

So given all of the above, what's the "ideal" new coin? First and foremost, it has to bring something new. If you clone an existing coin and just tweak the parameters a bit and create a new image and name, you've created a coin that's basically just a money grab from the developers (and to an extent the whole cryptocurrency community). You need at least some sort of major new feature. For example, stuff like a built-in exchange system in the wallet would be useful, or at least a way to check the current prices; Stealth Transaction type features are also useful. Most other "additions" are just fooling around trying to pretend to be different. I don't think in-wallet games are useful, as that's just a time sink and people have lives they need to live (e.g. you can't have five different wallets with games running and expect a person to play/mine/whatever all of them at the same time).

If UTC is going to hard fork to PoS, they ought to look at some other fundamental changes. The coin went from what -- 6 seconds to 20 seconds to 30 seconds for the block times? 30 seconds might be okay now, but one minute still seems more reasonable to me, especially given PoS will be more consistent. Now add in something like Stealth Transactions (similar to the new VTC), and a built-in ABE-style block explorer, and the ability to do a VeriSend type of transaction (send BTC via UTC) and we're looking at something useful. At that point, if you can make all of those additions, is it better to fork from UTC or would it be best to just make a new coin? Or does the market really just want some of these features for an existing coin that is already well regarded (BTC, LTC, etc.)?

The coming alt-coin apocalypse is going to be messy, and I'd guess that less than 10% of alt-coins will really be doing anything worthwhile in another year -- and maybe even 5%. It's like a business that expands too rapidly and suddenly has 3000 retail locations, and then they realize they're not getting enough customers at each location and so a few years later they file for bankruptcy and close most of the stores. Cryptocurrencies have done basically that right now, and while not all of the coins were created in such a way as to be deemed "junk copies", there will be some "good" coins that die along with the "bad".

Price going down as we haven't been on coinmarketcap for 2 days. Why haven't you sorted this, surly you look on there 2-3 times a day to see what's going on in crypto land.

As one of the biggest 'bag holders' I have to say this isn't the coin I invested over $25k  into and I'm against making it full POS. I thought this was a long term coin focused on development and not too concerned about its price as the price will go up naturally as it became more accepted in marketplaces. I'm also against this decision been made to completely make it a different coin without consultation with the community.

I have to question the mine craft idea also. If you are so confident it will attract lots of interest why not wait until the mine craft idea is complete and availble.
I'm not getting into an argument and don't really want people to reply. I just wanted to have my say as I read this thread 2 times a day and haven't spoken up about my views

Miners dumping coins on exchanges was never your problem.  That's the only thing this full PoS solution really solves.  

I don't know what "experts" in the crypto field you spoke to, but you only heard what you wanted to or were fed bad advice.  PoS with a 7 day minimum coin age is a disaster waiting to happen as far as the blockchain is concerned.  It will be fine... initially.  There are plenty of people with a whole lot of coins not doing anything with them.

 But at 30 second blocks (I'll review the code to see if your PoS implementation is on the same schedule as PoW), you're going to have 20,160 blocks in each PoS minimum age cycle.  I highly doubt you wrote new code that restricts the total number of coins that can be staked in each block, hence you'd need 20,160 separate instances of stakeable coins every week to keep the transactions times constant.  

If we make the assumption that the average wallet may have quite a few different coin ages in it at any given  time, I still wouldn't guess there would be more than 25 stakeable instances per wallet per period.  You'd need 806 wallets open 24/7 with stakeable coins to hit that number.  That's assuming none of them ever move them.

Which is the other problem with PoS.  The whole rise in price of most PoS coins was due to their limited distribution period where people bought and hoarded them because they felt like they were getting in on a limited time offer.  After the first few dumps that happened after the PoS phase started for coins, the dumps came earlier and earlier.  New PoS coins can't even sustain their pump to the end of their distribution stage anymore before being dumped as people try to get out while the getting is good.

Now you have a full PoS coin that basically does not allow people to get in on the limited distribution stage.  How are you going to market that?  

"Hey, we're full PoS!  The only way you can get it is to buy some from us!"
"Why do I want to buy it?"
"Because you need to get it while the price is still low!"
"Why?"
"Because our multipool is going to be buying it all up!"
"What are they doing with the UTC they buy?"
"...selling it to you, dear investor!"
"Why do I want it again?"
"So you can hold and sell it to other investors."
"This sounds like a pyramid scheme."

The point is that you still haven't created demand and now you've killed the only identity this coin has marketed for the past 5 months.  It's no longer a mineable asic-resistant coin, and there is a good chance transactions speeds are about to suffer.  You can't arb with it, you can't use it anywhere that other coins can't be used, and now you've shunned everyone that hadn't already been a part of the community.  The only way out is to cannibalize those within the community now as you buy and sell to one another.  

The statement's been put out there and I wouldn't take it back at this point, because looking flaky is only going to shake confidence even further.  But I really would have strongly advised against hopping on a bandwagon that has already passed.  

I'm curious as to what defines a "large" holder of UTC any more.

Multipool does not mine UTC, its mines other coins, sells them for BTC, and then buys UTC from exchanges to distribute to its miners.

PoS is basically another way to mine a coin and for transactions to be processed on the blockchain.  Instead of using hardware, you use the amounts of coins you hold in your wallet.  Each stake that occurs is 1 block, and has the same function as PoW block mined with hardware in PoW coin be it SHA, Scrypt or X11.  
The difference in PoS is the block reward is "interest" on how much is staked. It uses the entire input (eg 1 withdrawal to your wallet, that is kept unmoved for a week), which afterward then will take another week (or the min period for staking in coin specifications) before it happens again. So you can see that without some planning, the blockchain and transactions can become very slow or irregular if people are not supporting the network with their own inputs/balances in wallets.  Successful full PoS coins and their holders planned for this advance had good specifications to support Full PoS eg BC has 8 hour min stake age and low interest.

UTC if switched to full PoS would take at least a week before the blockchain got upto speed again as it unlikely there are many who keep their wallets open 24/7 for weekly interest, they only need to open once a week at minimum. So unless preparation is made in advance by holders now or better thought into the specifications and implementation of full PoS, it could really harm UTC network and as a result cause it to further devalue.  

UTC was created as PoW/PoS coin, and the specifications had it being an investment coin (as it was 1 year for a PoS block to occur) with PoW mining to support blockchain/transactions.  Now i believe that is changed to 1 week, so becoming full PoS is possible but I dont see how it improve the or create more interest in it as a currency.  Imho it would be better to switch the algo for PoW mining to X11 (more ASIC resistant) or Scrypt (better blockchain support from ASICs) with a lower block reward, and keep PoS as it is or adjustments to encourage saving and holding in wallets.  Then multipool and others may buy up larger amounts off exchanges to keep in their wallets, and allow the price to rise steadily.

The blockreward was not changed to affect price, it was done to repair an unsustainable system, in the original parameters, 100% of UTC would have been distributed in just 1 year

PaulR1 and everyone else. I had mentioned this earlier and received no response.  UTC generates about 43,200 coins per 24 hour period.  If the multipool were to generate say double that, the coin would have no choice but to go up and supply would start to dwindle.  Having this kind of hashrate on the multipool ahead of any other 'big' action should only enhance the value of that action.

We have seen the multipool generate the ability to purchase 25K in coins, last purchase totalled almost 11K.  Crossing 43K is not insurmountable and everyone's coins go up in value.  This is not rocket science. this is supply and demand.

Surprise us
Where is your good news fabietech?