DEV we need quick Halves, other wise Multipool will keep dumping their coins until pow period ends...
you can also check dark thread, at first the reward is 500coin then reduce to 25 coins after they realised the Multipool dumping.
similar thing happened with XC coin. they ends their mining period soon after they realized Multipool keep dumping
Further more, POS mining is a more greener way for coin distribution, it do not need GPU cards and waste electricity!
what's the meaning of pow period?
Halves block reward to 64 coins, Please..
I understand your point and concerns, and we will seriously consider your proposal. We know this is what happened to XC and other coins. We will protect the best of our community's interests against multipools. The Supercoin dev team will make a decision on this matter. Thank you for your great support to us. thanks for your quick reply dev. i have engaged with altcoin more than one years, have seen so many good coins just killed by Multipool. i do hope supercoin has a bright future, because we are super! From my altcoin experience, there are 2 things are really bad for altcoin. First is coin inflation, because everyday if we have 0.3 Million supercoin, if the price hit 10K satoshi, you will need 30BTC buying support, that's ok with current circumstances, but if the price hit 100K satoshi, you will need 300BTC support everyday, so it's impossible for nowdays coin, that's the reason why dark and XC and VRC coin has very low inflation. i also hope supercoin has a lower inflation. Second is the Multipool, they will control everyday's coin supply, after they mined this coin, they will dump it soon for profit. so based the two reasons, i would like to advice to reduce the block reward more quickly and keep the total amount fixed or also can reduce the total amount. otherwise the price is not maintainable. so how about reduce the block reward every week and at some point keep it at a low block reward? so now we have 512 coin block reward, 512--》256--》128--》64 ends （4 weeks） or 512--》256--》128--》64--》32 ends.（ Multipool will not profitable any more and keep lower inflation also small miner will mine this coin）(5 weeks) if we have a lower block reward, people would keep their coin for pos mining, it‘s a better and greener way for coin distributing than Multipool control the coin supply. Posted this 4 days ago. but first let's watch what will happens after the first halve happens, if the Multipool still control the everyday's coin supply, we may discuss this issue later. |
|
|
|
busoni, my friend, how is the code review by yourself going? We need some clarification from you. Thanks.
? |
|
|
|
|
busoni, i respect you, but it seems you do make a mistake.
|
|
|
|
BUSONI fucked up his own business. i will not talk in their trollbox and will not trade there anymore.
i will tweet as much as i can.
i will let all big whales and traders know the truth.
the incompetence and ignorance will drain out their volume
i will give BITTREX my golden hints and tips about improvement, actually i already did.
hope bittrex will get more attractive to users and beat polo soon.
Polo is acting like 10-year girl, refusing take responsibility.
busoni did not show up until now? |
|
|
|
thanks, will donate for this. |
|
|
|
BUSONI fucked up his own business. i will not talk in their trollbox and will not trade there anymore.
i will tweet as much as i can.
i will let all big whales and traders know the truth.
the incompetence and ignorance will drain out their volume
i will give BITTREX my golden hints and tips about improvement, actually i already did.
hope bittrex will get more attractive to users and beat polo soon.
Polo is acting like 10-year girl, refusing take responsibility.
give busoni another day, if he did not show up, we can open a public letter on bitcointalk forum. |
|
|
|
Feel the Power Vote for SUPER on MINTPAL: https://www.mintpal.com/voting#SUPERTell your friends to vote for SUPER on MINTPAL: https://www.mintpal.com/voting#SUPERAnnouncing the SuperCoin Logo Design Contest!Supercoin is looking for an updated logo design. Once we select the winner, we'll need it in .png format on transparency in the following sizes: - 543 x 468 pixels to be used on the wallet splash screen - 400 x 250 pixels to be used inside of our wallet - 300 x 300 pixels to be used on exchanges and OP Our contest requirements are simple: - We would like a minimum of five (5) entries. Post your logo in our Bitcointalk thread between 6/8/14 thru 6/22/14. - We are interested in keeping the classic "superman" diamond theme. - A metallic, steel, or iron influenced treatment to communicate security and strength. - Darker colors for a more serious tone, though this is optional. - The final decision will be made by the Supercoin Team. - Superman logo is trademarked do not use it. Make it original. Bounty: 5120 SUPER coin (10 blocks) + being winner in a contest Mintpal for what ? if we have only 12 BTC buy support now and many people waiting to dump the coins prior to multipool when the price increases a little. bad idea not reduce the reward to 32. I do make a advice to reduce the block reward to 32 directly before we have first update the source. Be patient guys. we will overcome this. |
|
|
|
|
busoni, my friend, how is the code review by yourself going? We need some clarification from you. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
thanks for the update dev.
|
|
|
|
Lets focus to the future, we proved our anon system works. We need to get more feedbacks about this. So we can improve it for better.
so any chance of ending POW sooner Community can discuss this after Anon test? i also agree to reduce block reward more quick, no need to suffer Another days big dump from Multipool. Dev and Community can discuss this together.  |
|
|
|
Lets focus to the future, we proved our anon system works. We need to get more feedbacks about this. So we can improve it for better.
Thanks dev. when will we have our first halves? |
|
|
|
I would like to point out that I did not personally review the code, as many people seem to think. The person who did has very high standards and was not thrilled with what he saw, and he was overzealous in his criticisms. When I made this post, I firmly believed that the maximum supply was inflated. My intention with going public before contacting the devs was to make sure they did not have a chance to cover up the mistake or take advantage of the issue.
It is my responsibility to ensure that these issues are addressed correctly, so no fingers should be pointed anywhere but at me. I see now that I should have had another reviewer confirm the findings, and investigated sufficiently to make sure I understood all of the code myself before proceeding. I apologize for this misstep. There are still some parts of the code we're concerned about, so our investigations will continue, and I will talk to the devs privately about the anon feature.
This whole raising the standards for coins thing is in an early stage, and we are constantly improving our process. We believe strongly in integrity and transparency, and it has always been my intention to use Poloniex's position to improve the quality of crypto.
lmao, it is not the problem of standard, it is also not the problem to ensure good quality of coin code, it is the problem whoever reviewed the code, have no basic idea how the coin code works - this is a serious problem. Please, I used Poloniex a lot and I liked it (I traded a lot there), but I am surprised at what has happened. It certainly degraded Poloniex. Next time please use a qualified person to do review, not a high school kid who have no idea what he's talking about. In my previous posts, I showed how the MAX_MONEY is used in the code: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=652351.msg7315515#msg7315515and how total coin is calculated: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=652351.msg7315840#msg7315840and as a staff of Poloniex, please make responsible claims. Whoever made that claim, apparently have no idea of the coin code. Exactly, the above comments are right on the spot! Busoni, your irresponsible and wrong claim damaged SuperCoin's reputation (and yours of course), you should publicly appologize to the community! At least, Another announcement on poloniex website! |
|
|
|
I would like to point out that I did not personally review the code, as many people seem to think. The person who did has very high standards and was not thrilled with what he saw, and he was overzealous in his criticisms. When I made this post, I firmly believed that the maximum supply was inflated. My intention with going public before contacting the devs was to make sure they did not have a chance to cover up the mistake or take advantage of the issue.
It is my responsibility to ensure that these issues are addressed correctly, so no fingers should be pointed anywhere but at me. I see now that I should have had another reviewer confirm the findings, and investigated sufficiently to make sure I understood all of the code myself before proceeding. I apologize for this misstep. There are still some parts of the code we're concerned about, so our investigations will continue, and I will talk to the devs privately about the anon feature.
This whole raising the standards for coins thing is in an early stage, and we are constantly improving our process. We believe strongly in integrity and transparency, and it has always been my intention to use Poloniex's position to improve the quality of crypto.
lmao, it is not the problem of standard, it is also not the problem to ensure good quality of coin code, it is the problem whoever reviewed the code, have no basic idea how the coin code works - this is a serious problem. Please, I used Poloniex a lot and I liked it (I traded a lot there), but I am surprised at what has happened. It certainly degraded Poloniex. Next time please use a qualified person to do review, not a high school kid who have no idea what he's talking about. In my previous posts, I showed how the MAX_MONEY is used in the code: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=652351.msg7315515#msg7315515and how total coin is calculated: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=652351.msg7315840#msg7315840and as a staff of Poloniex, please make responsible claims. Whoever made that claim, apparently have no idea of the coin code. It's true, it seems the person who review the code do not know much about Altcoin! Maybe he is a good coder But he is new to Crypto world!!! |
|
|
|
+1. HE is struggling to find more evidence to second his stupid announcement and decision. give him some time and leave polo alone. i do suggest BITTREX to do some interface improvement and troll box implementation. BTC-E trading interface is my favorite and POLO did adopted that. so imagine if BITTREX steadily improves their features. i don't care where i am trading. as long as coin and dev are legit. Mintpal and Bter will come out later. Take it easy. |
|
|
|
I would like to point out that I did not personally review the code, as many people seem to think. The person who did has very high standards and was not thrilled with what he saw, and he was overzealous in his criticisms. When I made this post, I firmly believed that the maximum supply was inflated. My intention with going public before contacting the devs was to make sure they did not have a chance to cover up the mistake or take advantage of the issue.
It is my responsibility to ensure that these issues are addressed correctly, so no fingers should be pointed anywhere but at me. I see now that I should have had another reviewer confirm the findings, and investigated sufficiently to make sure I understood all of the code myself before proceeding. I apologize for this misstep. There are still some parts of the code we're concerned about, so our investigations will continue, and I will talk to the devs privately about the anon feature.
This whole raising the standards for coins thing is in an early stage, and we are constantly improving our process. We believe strongly in integrity and transparency, and it has always been my intention to use Poloniex's position to improve the quality of crypto.
. it seems that's the real busoni . This one is who I will respect. |
|
|
|
update from BUSONI https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=652351.msg7319548#msg7319548I would like to point out that I did not personally review the code, as many people seem to think. The person who did has very high standards and was not thrilled with what he saw, and he was overzealous in his criticisms. When I made this post, I firmly believed that the maximum supply was inflated. My intention with going public before contacting the devs was to make sure they did not have a chance to cover up the mistake or take advantage of the issue.
It is my responsibility to ensure that these issues are addressed correctly, so no fingers should be pointed anywhere but at me. I see now that I should have had another reviewer confirm the findings, and investigated sufficiently to make sure I understood all of the code myself before proceeding. I apologize for this misstep. There are still some parts of the code we're concerned about, so our investigations will continue, and I will talk to the devs privately about the anon feature.
This whole raising the standards for coins thing is in an early stage, and we are constantly improving our process. We believe strongly in integrity and transparency, and it has always been my intention to use Poloniex's position to improve the quality of crypto.
it seems that's the real busoni. |
|
|
|
i just did test on testnet.
works fine to me. i can't find sender
sorry for my imcompetence, and hope some one can make a pro video presentation and paste some screenshots.
will do this when back home. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
