You do know this is not an unrealistic scenario if you play your cards well, right?  

But it's way too early to take your foot off the gas if you want to see that happen.

Jesus people. One smart ass comment after another and nobody gets anywhere.

You are both wrong and this kind of lazy 'sick burn lol' debate is utterly counterproductive.

1: Tyson187, you are crossing up the goals of transparency with anonymity.  One of the main selling points of crypto is that the system works without any dependency on who made it, why they made it or what their agenda is or was. This is because it is transparent by design:  all of the moving parts are visible, balances are visible, specs and code are visible.  If you know *how* the system works and can follow all the processes flowing through it, it doesn't matter *who* made it work.  Anonymity does not obscure transparency; quite the opposite: it is transparency that makes identity irrelevant, and thus makes anonymity possible. This is crypto 101.

2: all the others piling on taking easy "huuu durr satoshi lol" potshots without addressing the underlying question: Yeah, congrats. You understand a basic crypto 101 issue, anonymity doesn't necessarily conflict with transparency.  But Tyson187's comment was actually about transparency.  He just chose a particularly bad way to bring it up. Comparing bitcoin's success, when it had no peers or competition in the crypto space, and all of the spotlight focused on it for a very long time, to an obscure alt buried in the middle of 300 other competitors all fighting for a tiny slice of a slice of a slice of the market, is lazy and impotent reasoning.  

You can't just expect to do what Bitcoin did and reproduce its success. The game has changed a LOT. Now you need to offer more to get and hold people's attention.  Some of that is innovation, like PoT.  Some of it is community engagement, which in some (and by some i mean almost all) cases can include a highly visible presence by the dev team to encourage people that they are committed to its success.  It ALSO includes not actively driving away potential new community members and investors by being a juvenile dickface to them just because you think there are no repercussions to you personally.

Have you noticed the FLT price right now?  if you are holding any of it, you can thank those in this community who enjoy promoting a "dickface culture" for at least part its downward spiral in value.  We all could have been sitting on the next BlackCoin right now and made 10 or 50x the initial investment, using that to fund more and more resources and make kidcoin able to quit his job and work on FLT full time - by being supportive, engaged and by responding thoughtfully to questions and criticism and using that dialogue to refine and improve the "Flutterverse".  

But no, we like to get by with laziest, bullshit zero-effort remarks and make more people sell out in disgust.  You know the term 'own goal' right?

There are not enough poles holding up this tent to go kicking any of them down for no reason.  

Cue the predictable  "FUD" "GTFO troll" comments from mental midgets, it usually starts happening right about here.  

Great show of support here

> Multipools DO NOT mine anywhere close to 900K flutter each day.

Does it really matter who is doing the mining and dumping?  Ok so let's say it's not multipools, then who is it? Dedicated FLT miners themselves?  Mine dumping their own coin?  This is actually even worse TBH. I mean. I expect multipools to dump, that's their job.

I believe things will turn around, don't worry.  I am buying on these dips, but I don't really see a reason to pretend they are not otherwise disappointing.  150 was the price before it hit Cryptsy when few people knew about it.  It was also nearly 3000 a week ago too, so that logic goes both ways.  

FWIW I am working on some ideas to polish up the public face of the coin.  I am not highly technical (by my own standards, I mean I can code a little here and there and understand the protocol, but it's a hobby interest, not my core competency) but I am pretty good at succinctly explaining why innovative concepts are important, rather than just what they do, by drilling down into their value application story.  I am curious to see what the new developments are and will do my best to evangelize them if they are positive.  

Like you, nobody is paying me to do this.  Unlike you, I have a tiny, TINY amount of FLT holdings (not even in the top 300) so making an effort to bring the price up by working on community projects has close to zero real payoff for me.  It's more about getting tired of seeing so little done while other coins are clearly trying to figure out ways to steal FLT's thunder.  Read the 14 page whitepaper on PoSV for reddcoin, it's basically trying to claim that it encourages spending and transactions (the "V" stands for velocity, as in velocity of money) but makes a much, *much* better case for why this is important than FLT's whitepaper does.  

Now that being said, I believe PoSV is not going to succeed in that objective (they have identified the problem very well, but the solution is just a PoS accounting gimmick, sort of like a coin control for dummies), and that PoT is a vastly better solution.  but PoT suffers from very poor exposure -  the only people who are looking closely at it are other coin devs who just want to rip it off and claim they invented it (or something superficially similar to it) first.

Probably because the last two halvings did little if anything to slow down the multipool dumpings.

Maybe this time it will be different, and the floor of the coin has inched up a little bit over past couple days.  But it really couldn't have gone much farther down either, so there's that too.

Ah yes, what was that I was saying just before?  Oh yeah, this:  I think the problem with PoT is the message - it is very confusing at first, and it can turn off a lot of people because the way it is presented sounds like it either won't work (and cannot be readily tested to prove it does), or even if it works it won't matter in any meaningful way. 

DEVS:  IF you don't take control of the message, people have to figure out what it is on their own (or listen to someone else tell them FUD), and that usually does not end well.   

QED.

I get what you are saying and agree that PoT is in need of some kind of rethinking to make it more generalized so that it is attractive to users for spending.  

But I don't think PoT can be decouple from mining because PoT *is* a form of mining.  The reward comes from the same place (and is subject to the same randomizing factors) that mining rewards come from - the 'mining' of a block.  And recall that mining's main purpose is to secure the blockchain by confirming transactions, the minting of coin (and distribution of it in the form of block rewards as compensation for the cost of transaction processing and keeping a costly full node running to bolster the network) is a secondary function.  

PoT is basically mining, but driven by transactions. You can think of PoW as non-stop mining, while PoT is iterative, mining a tiny bit on every transaction.  

PoT, like PoS, is first and foremost intended to decentralize the network away from dedicated mining by offloading the work of transaction confirmation processing from dedicated mining rigs and spreading it out to edge users and wallets.  

 PoS staking interest, like PoT rewards, is a form of compensation for keeping a node open to support the network (PoS) and using the coin to drive the economy the network supports (PoT)

In that sense it goes even farther toward the goals of "ASIC resistance" and decentralization than any of these new PoW algos like Scrypt-N and X11, Jane, etc.  Those algos merely put up passive barriers to slow the ASIC army's advance, whereas PoT and PoS actively starve it into submission.

I think the problem with PoT is the message - it is very confusing at first, and it can turn off a lot of people because the way it is presented sounds like it either won't work (and cannot be readily tested to prove it does), or even if it works it won't matter in any meaningful way.  What does Butterfly Effect actually mean in real terms of benefits to users, or miners, or investors or even merchants?  

A narrative focusing on very random and rare (and thus 'unbankable') PoT rewards is not going to get many people excited once they see how unlikely it is they will get one (especially as the rewards get miniscule with every block having).  But crypto people have a strong interest in making sure networks stay decentralized, just look at all the energy and effort and ink being used on ASIC resistance.  It's a huge, huge topic for us. Which is great because decentralization is what PoT actually does well.

Explaining that PoT is another arrow in the decentralization quiver will be much better received than saying you might randomly get a small amount of free FLT, because enthusiasm for this quickly turns to a cynicism once the whole story comes out about how rare that free payout actually is.

Or better yet, rethink the whole concept of PoT to make it much more spectacular than it already is.  If, say (just spitballing here), all PoT rewards accrued to a secured escrow "network owned" wallet somewhere and that wallet built up a large pool that randomly paid out like an actual lotto jackpot,  people would get very excited about that because they can relate to huge rewards that are extremely rare much more than small rewards that are kind of rare.  

I would have believed that prediction myself.  If generic garbage like reddcoin and asiacoin, and even totally broken and forked copycat coins like whitecoin could get significant investment and speculation attention (which always leaves them worth more than before they were pumped) then something with actual interesting capabilities like FLT sure could have.  But .. those coins have functional communities run by people who understand the value that a community brings to a coin.  That money going into those coins should have been FLT's to use for development and paying bounties etc, but instead we sit around content to make extremely helpful smart ass one-line joke responses to people foolish enough to mention the elephant in the room and suggest ideas to deal with it.

Here's a cool story bros:   



Although I think you might regret doing that Mr.  1.9 million seller,  I can't say I blame you right now. 

you misspelled "I have no clue whatsoever how to answer"

I think it's pretty clear from my post that I know damn well the block halving will eventually address this mine-raping problem.  I still think it would be better if it didn't happen in the first place, but whatever.  Way to go with the misdirection.

The lack of community engagement is most of what my post was about, and I am afraid there's nothing wrong with my facts there.  That 2-3 sat shitcoin I was alluding to, which had a 30 BTC sell wall but a fantastic community effort run by the dev?   It's 11 sats today - 30 BTC + additional 40 BTC of sell wall vaporised. 

They kept the community fired up despite the deplorable outlook and when they were ready to introduce something semi-newsworthy today (they added a PoS system to a plain vanilla PoW coin), and they had all the right eyes in place to make the market come back to life and blow the lid off that sell pressure.  It may well die back down in a few days but this is a textbook case of investing in the community instead of being indifferent to it, and having it pay off by multiplying your efforts.

I almost hope so.  If that happens and the people who could have made tons on it but did little to promote it are sitting on mediocre junk, they deserve it.   Which is too bad because it's a good coin that doesn't deserve to wilt from lack of attention.

Thank god for hitting the darkcoin and BC pumps or I'd have net lost money on FLT bigtime. This is why you don't put all eggs in one basket.

I am sitting on damn near a loss right now, but I also know that these multipool attacks are cyclical and burn themselves out after awhile as they ruin the profitability of the coin they are hammering to the point that its not worth hammering any more. 

I really wish FLT would have had at very least KGW to fend this off as it is very hard to remain a supporter of the coin in forums etc.  when the charts make it look like you are incapable of understanding basic math.  The only upside is that there is another halving this saturday and this will really bring the profitability down to unappealing levels and old coins mined during fat rewards era will start getting sold off to replace lost income from mine-to-dump.   

Its worth noting that other coin communities are in much, much worse shape right now in terms of profit (selling for 3 or 2 sats and massive 20-30 BTC sell walls) but the community itself is largely blowing it off and keeps trying to create new tools to promote their coin, runs multiple subreddits, runs contests, twitter campaigns and more.  I don't know why Flutter has not attracted these kinds of users, but we can't just rest on the innovation of Proof of Transaction and expect that to pull all the weight.  It's not even that great as an implementation, to be honest it feels like a kind of experimental "what-if" scenario that was turned into a real coin. Though  - the fundamental idea behind it is worthy of a lot of respect and will eventually get traction.

I have about 1 BTC invested in Flutter, all paid for - i didn't mine anything - and I wish I had more time to do all these projects but frankly I have to limit myself to being a cheerleader here and there as I am only moderately savvy in the technical side of crypto. 

But there are people who have 5, 10, 20 or more BTC in Flutter (whether through early low diff mining or through trading) and I hope they can see the value in making a public commitment to throwing 5% or 10% of that at some of the bounty projects to get this community jolted into action. 
I will put in 5% of what I have if I know some of the early owners will do the same because I am certain we will all get that same % back in profitability if the community can get out of the "you go first"  mode that it is stuck in. 

The bloom will be off the PoT rose soon enough if the head start on other coins is not taken advantage of with some PR efforts and quickly!  I am already seeing a sudden uptick in "innovation of the week" whitepapers coming out which will quickly crowd the message space with distractions that will all try to steal what little spotlight is currently on Flutter away from it.

Why would anyone here want CINNI when it has

1. a worse PoS stake plan than Flutter

2. worse coin distribution and market cap

3. no - ZERO - new innovations of its own, when Flutter has Proof of Transaction? 

I'd like to see PoT given some kind of sliding scale so that every transaction can pay back a tiny amount (even if it's just barely a few satoshis or fluttaishis or whatever) or you can elect to notch it up to larger payouts that are more and more random.  That way if you want to take chances for fun, sure go for it and set it to 2500 FLT at max odds, or set it to 1 FLT at guaranteed odds - in both cases the minimum Xfer to qualify should be appropriate as well, i.e. the 1 FLT payout requires 100 FLT transfer.  I realize that PoT is basically a kind of one-transaction-at-a-time iterative mining process so the randomness of PoT rewards is derived from the natural randomness of mining a block. Given this, a PoT peer to peer reward pool might need to exist to take large PoT rewards and pool them into payout streams in order to make PoT 'feel' more like a reward system and less like a lottery for those who aren't really into the chance reward concept (which I suspect is most people). 

It was working earlier - I saw 36 coins being multimined

What do you think the possibilities are to add some kind of auto-pay of the PoT reward as a commission, or to set it to a fixed (but very small) amount as an alternate to a random but very large amount?  This would let merchants make commissions on FLT-based sales with little additional effort on their dev side, and allow referral based marketing plans to be set up using it.  But there has to be a guaranteed payout in those cases, they won't understand the unpredictability of waiting for a PoT reward even if most of us in crypto-land do.

Feel free to drop in and join our GRID!

There's a whitepaper on  www.fluttercoin.us that covers it.  It's very short.

A less technical 'how', and more of a 'why' explanation given in this thread on or two pages back:

Proof of Transaction serves the same beneficial function that mining does: it secures the blockchain by confirming transactions. Except instead of rewarding an energy-wasting and rapidly centralizing arms race between miners solving useless busywork calculations, it rewards the actual end users of the coin for doing a useful service that they naturally would do anyway, which is spending it.   Mining serves well its purpose to bootstrap the coin but like training wheels on a bicycle, once the coin matures and gets used heavily, mining starts to cause more problems than it solves as seen by the enormous cost of running the Bitcoin network as well as its tendency for mining to become centralized over time. All workarounds, such as ASIC resistance, which still preserve the role of mining as the only securing proof system, only serve to delay the problem. They do not attempt to fundamentally solve it in the way that a PoT/PoS coin maturity life cycle (such as the one Flutter has created) does.

Proof of Block is now refferd to as Proof of Transaction - they are the same thing.   Dev decided Proof of Transaction  made more sense.  I think it could be made even clearer by calling it "Proof by Transaction"  but that wouldn't fit with the   PoW/PoT/PoS   holy trinity