Thanks, hopefully now that a lot of the grunt work is out the way we can now focus on more exciting developments

Don't worry so much about what other coins are doing/saying

Just keep focusing on positive ways to move this coin forward, people are not stupid they will recognise which coins are the leaders and which are the followers and only the leaders will remain in the long term.

Anyone who wants to build from source. Please use this repository, https://github.com/nlgcoin/guldencoin-official
This is where official sources for releases will be available going forward.

Thanks, Rijk did bring this up however due to time restrictions (and for technical reasons) it was decided to defer making a decision and/or change on this and other finer language points until next release where it will be addressed.

Just a general note, there are a lot of little things that we don't like and would like to change etc. however at some point it is necessary to  draw a line and release or else nothing will ever be released, this release should be seen as a stepping stone release that will serve as a foundation for much better things to come, UI improvements that we want to make will come in future release etc.

Just a quick reminder to everyone that it is always a good idea to ensure you have a recent backup of your wallet epecially when upgrading.

I am generating/managing this release over the last two weeks 1000km away from home, on a poor internet connection, sitting in my nieces plastic kiddies chair (Because my mothers house doesn't have proper office furniture), while visiting my fiance who has just had a successful transplant (for which we have waited for 2 years) in between flights back and forth back home where I also need to try manage my house and business.
A very happy but also very stressful time in my life.

So you will forgive me if the whims of when some random person on the forum wants us to release has exactly 0 impact on our release schedule. We are releasing today because we happen to be ready today, no other reason.
If you want to buy packages then that is of course great, go ahead, but don't think that such actions are going to place pressure on anybody to do anything faster.

In terms of features I know things may not be moving as fast as some had hoped would happen since I joined, know that we are doing a lot of unglamorous behind the scene work first, getting things like automated builds working 100% etc. etc. to build a solid foundation to work on.
In my experience trying to build features without such things is silly, any idiot can add a few flashy features, doing so in a maintainable professional manner that is not a nightmare going forward is an entirely different story, I only do the second kind of development.

How many of them switched to PoS because they were already failing though, one should not confuse cause and effect...
Anyway if we do go PoS it will likely be a dual PoW/PoS combination of some form and not pure PoS so it wouldn't really be a switch, anyway lets  talk about that when we get there and not put the cart before the horse.

Well no, because it isn't just new coins from miners that are available on the market, people can and will still choose to sell the coins they currently hold
What it does mean is that there will be a lot less trading coins from miners flooding out the trading from regular users, so the exchange prices are likely to closer reflect what regular users value the coin at instead of what miners happen to be dumping for at that moment...

Not trying to change your mind on this, I accept that not everyone is going to be comfortable with the changes and you are of course entitled to your viewpoints/feelings.

However just thought I would point out that this change is only being proposed because it is something we feel is very important to do right now, and because most of the people we have asked have agreed (and not because of the current price as some are saying but more for long term distribution and stability benefits)
It is not something that we would do on a whimsy, this has been an ongoing discussion internally for ages before we decided it was right, so this doesn't mean that now suddenly we will be wanting to change the amount of coins every few weeks.
Further ultimately the coin is open source, so if anyone ever goes completely crazy and does start making random changes that the entire community disagrees with then the community can always just stand up and fork the coin - so I don't think there is a massive danger of this setting some precedent or other, I am not a massive fan of changing things like this either, however sometimes changes are necessary no matter how scary on unnerving they can be.

Perhaps you should read what was proposed again, the above is not what was proposed.

Essentially:
1) Instead of a large upfront reward that halves periodically there will be a constant reward that continues for a long period of time
2) The total eventual number of coins will remain the same.
i.e. When the total number of coins is reached the reward will still drop to 0, it will just do this without repeated halving that create market panic and other problems but instead in a constant more natural fashion, that allows coins to be better distributed instead of all accumulating to early adopters.

Haha, I can't take all the blamecredit here, all dev decisions are based on bullyingdiscussion and whoever yells the loudestconsensus :p

Sorry, but you are mistaken, pay closer attention to the original post.
Pay attention to language used in various places throughout my post:
"we are not satisfied"
"or at least I am not confident"
"it is good to know your limits"
"theoretical problems and flaws" with all of them.
"not necessarily going to help"
"This is not to say that multi-algo is 'completely broken'"
"the above are of course theoretical"
"I would not begin a complete panic about other coins."
"Perhaps time will show differently that the worries are unfounded."
"I would not personally use such an important coin as NLG on which to test theories"
"I can not in good concious recommend anything that is not 100% theoretically air tight."
"It is my belief that..."
"don't want to implement something we are not 100% happy with"
"based also on the possibility that there may be further flaws we are missing"
"It is my feeling that they are not more secure but then that depends on various things."

I went out of my way to show that it is only an opinion (an informed one but one nonetheless), and to as such not say anything overly decisive, if you or other people want to misinterpret what I have said and quote only little tidbits then that is not my problem, I certainly won't revoke my opinion and stand 100% by it, I'm certainly under no obligation to now spend the rest of my life writing detailed reports on other peoples code for them.
A theoretical flaw is enough for me personally to not put any more time into it, if  I were to spend weeks of my life detailing formal proofs of every algorithm I discard I would never get any work done, it is neither my job or responsibility to worry about what other coins do so unless you are offering to pay me for my time providing formal proofs of insecurity would not be worth my time.

Your post is quite frankly very aggressive and demanding, and is now off topic for this the Guldencoin forum, I have replied one last time only to defend myself against your aggression I will not reply to you again. I strongly suggest that you drop this now, if you want to talk about Digibyte go to the Digibyte forum.

Yeah, you are now focusing on a specific word (arbitrary) and ignoring the sentences that come afterwards to explain what I mean by arbitrary, I was not saying that the difficulty targeting is arbitrary, I make it quite clear that the difficulty is fine when used within each individual algorithm, so you have misunderstood.
This is anyway a 'dumbed down' explanation intended for people who don't have the full level of system/code understanding to fully evaluate what is going on, I did make that quite clear because really if I start going into the nitty details here it is just going to confuse people.

I could rebut the above and then we can argue ad infinitum about it, but honestly why, I have a whole list of constructive things I need to do with my very precious limited time. I only posted what I did to state the Guldencoin dev stance on multi and I stand by that stance. We feel the way we do for a reason, it isn't like we are suddenly going to change our minds, we are not 100% confident in multi algo and the instant that happens it would be simply poor form for us to continue to work on it. No forum argument is going to change that, the only way it might change is if someone comes with a formal proof for it, and that's not about to happen, so really why spend energy on it that we can better spend looking for better solutions.

I'm trying to be diplomatic about this, I went out of my way to *not* attack other coins in my explanation, I went to great lengths to point out why even though I feel there may be security issues they aren't necessarily at immediate risk etc. but still people keep trying to drag me into some argument about Digibyte and/or Myriad or something.. So truly I hope you don't think my comment was some attack on Digibyte or something...

Petty little 'fights' between coins is not something that interests me, I'm a builder, I'm here to build things, so really I'm not going to get dragged into this any more especially not here where very few people will understand the details anyway, Digibyte/Myriad are not my concern, I don't have any coins of either or any stake in their future and have very little personal interest in either.
Perhaps I misunderstand your intentions and you really are just concerned about your coin, and therefore want more details, if that is the case then I apologise for some of the above, it's just I feel I am not getting dragged into something that I should not be involved in.

This is the Guldencoin thread so please lets keep the discussion here about Guldencoin, this is the last I have to say on the matter in this thread. - If you want to discuss detailed technical stuff catch me on IRC when I have spare time.

Thanks, I have viewed your pull request before... It does address some of the issues, but I don't feel it addresses all of them and there are still potential problems that I'm not happy with, so I'm still not comfortable with multi algo as a general solution... Even if all these concerns are addressed I still wouldn't be 100% confident that there aren't other problems that are being missed. So while we are still discussing everything internally still I don't think we want to head towards multi really at this point...
That said it is important that things get addressed for those who are on multi algo and do feel it is the way to go, I mean it is not like they can just stop trying at this point, so do keep up the good work

I've not really had a close enough look at the code for any of them at this point to say how well implemented they are or what level of anonymity they truly provide.

While I like the idea of anonymity I personally think that too much focus on it right now may be detrimental to mainstream adoption, it is something that politicians etc. may not like and may use to tarnish crypto e.g. "If you use crypto you are supporting criminals/terrorists/whatever other boogieman"
So my personal view is anonymity is premature, it is something worth looking at once people are first more comfortable with crypto in general, for now there are lots of other usability issues that block adoption that I view as more important.

The above said though I don't control where Guldencoin goes, I only advise others and/or implement things so this sort of thing/decision is for other people to discuss/decide as we go forward. The above is just my personal view at this point in time.

The change actually ensures that more coins will be available for late adopters instead of all of them being mined in the next year or two (early adopters). So it is the exact opposite of 'screwing late adopters'. It is the standard, lots of coins in first year or two followed by halving's and almost no coins after that which 'screws late adopters'

It is also very over simplistic to say this is about manipulation and I question the motives of anyone who says so.

Due to the messed block targeting Guldencoin was happily producing 'X' coins a day, and the market was happy, the block targeting changes 'fixed' this and we are now producing 'Y' coins a day, it is quite clear that the market preferred 'X' coins a day and that 'Y' is too many as for most of the coins life it has been producing 'X' it can be argued that at this point leaving it at 'Y' would be allowing a large downward manipulation which will benefit nobody except a few rich early adopters.

One needs to consider also the ecosystem of merchants etc. that people have been working very hard to build, and this is more what Guldencoin is about than being some commodity to invest in. If the market continues to be flooded with coins rapidly now and then in a few years the coins completely dry up, nobody is going to spend any more at either point as neither massive increases or decreases is good in a currency that people actually hope to spend, with nobody spending the merchants will slowly start to pull out, everything will slowly unravel, this is nothing to do with a small group of people having 'faith' it is simple market reality. It would be completely silly to throw away all this hard infrastructure work over some silly pretence that some values that were set a year and a half ago were the right ones, when it is quite clear they are not.
A stable reward with a stable price is going to be much better for a merchant infastructure, Guldencoin had previously a stable price for a very long time and this is what allowed it to get where it is now.

It is my feeling that they are not more secure but then that depends on various things.
Has Myriad attracted more hash in its current form than it would have if it were yet another single-algo coin? Yes, probably, and this alone possible makes multi-algo more secure for that specific unique scenario (at least for now - maybe not after the hype wears off?) though not for subsequent coins that do the same thing necessarily.

As for why they marketed themselves as having better security, perhaps they believe(d) it to be true, either because they missed something (it happens to the best of us) which is easy to do in a complex code base, especially if you are not 100% familiar with how everything gels together, or because they know something I don't ,only time will tell on that one I guess - However I'd rather be wrong about it being insecure than assume it is secure and be wrong on that, the second has far worse consequences.

Or maybe they know it is not more secure but don't care, I don't know the people in question so I can't say anything for sure.
While I don't believe I am mistaken about multi-algo nothing is impossible so I am not going to point fingers at other people, but rather I am going to focus on what is important from my perspective, from my perspective I care only about the coins on which I work and I will not implement something that I do not believe will 100% work for this coin in the long term.

So I'm afraid these are not really questions I can answer for you in a meaningful way, they are things you should ask yourself or take up with the developers of the coins in question

Absolute fairness is great as an ideal but completely impractical and unachievable in reality. Would it be fair on those who have already invested to either leave things to continue on the wrong path or give up entirely? Life I am afraid is full of compromises, it is very rare to find yourself making a decision that is not going to be 'unfair' for somebody, this is why concepts of greater good etc. exist.

A quote that comes to mind "If you're not pissing someone off, you probably aren't doing anything important"

After looking into it extensively and much internal debate we have decided that multi-algo as it currently stands is flawed from a security perspective. While it sounds good on the surface there are some rather complex implementation issues in reality which have become apparent while looking at the code, that we are not satisfied can be solved in a reasonable way, or at least I am not confident I can solve them and I feel it is good to know your limits
I don't want to go into too much technical details but most of the flaws revolve around the fact that 'difficulty' is a somewhat arbitrary measurement, while it can be used to meaningfully compare two blocks from the same algorithm to one another, there is no real relation between the difficulties of two different algorithms. i.e. It is not really meaningful to say that a 500 difficulty Scrypt block is worth more or less than a 500 difficulty Groestl block. While it can be determined with some analysis for a specific moment in time with some work it requires a level of 'perfect information' that is not compatible with a p2p crypto currency type system, and even I as a human cannot tell you for a fact that the answer I give you now will still be the same in say six months time.
I have looked at various proposals to try and solves these issues, and what several coins have done and have found theoretical problems and flaws with all of them.
Putting those issues aside there is then the market related issue as well, which is that if you have e.g. 3 algorithms, your reward for each algorithm is 1/3, this is quite likely to attract 1/3 of the hash power for each algorithm, possible even less so in a way even if we can solve the technical issues it is not necessarily going to help form a security perspective.

This is not to say that multi-algo is 'completely broken' the above are of course theoretical i.e. it is not 100% completely trivial to attack a multi-algo coin, and you would still need a reasonable hash rate for at least  to do so, so I would not begin a complete panic about other coins. Perhaps time will show differently that the worries are unfounded.
However I would not personally use such an important coin as NLG on which to test theories, I can not in good concious recommend anything that is not 100% theoretically air tight.
There are also some 'non ideal' steps that can be taken to help prevent some of the issues which may involve lots of frequent changes to the coin which we do not want... whether other coins will do this or not depends on the coin.


It is my belief that the security would be likely worse or at best 'on par' with a standard single-algo coin, especially after taking the market factors into account, we don't want to implement something we are not 100% happy with, and we are not 100% happy with multi-algo at this point based on the flaws that have been uncovered, and based also on the possibility that there may be further flaws we are missing (Given that multi-algo has a higher complexity than single algo, simplicity is a desirable characteristic where possible)


We do however feel that the current single-algo is also not ideal, unless we can begin to attract far more hash power, so we are keeping a close eye on this while also looking into other options still.
A potential 'PoS' solution is on the cards, it would likely be added as a compliment to the current 'PoW' so we would end up with two algorithms, however again we must first do our homework and ensure we are completely happy with it before we implement it, so I don't want to make any guarantees just yet.
We will of course continue to look into all avenues to see what is best in the end.

The price changes are due to the huge increase in supply, now that more blocks are being generated again, there is nothing really that can be done about that other than to increase demand.