You may be confusing LTC/FTC with other coins that are POW+POS hybrids. Amount of coins held to secure the network with coins that have Proof of Stake minting, such as PPCoin, NovaCoin, BitBar, and YACoin. FC and LTC don't have POS features.

Yeah, that's where the hashrate figure may be a bit misleading (especially for coins such as PPC and Novacoin, and YAC, if it was listed). Isn't there a good way to estimate stake block creation in this overall hashrate picture?

Also, sal... I keep wondering if there is a way to get YAC listed on CC...maybe under a separate "CPU-coin" section of the site (like you have for litecoin-based coins).

Ok that's a great start. A written synopsis would be helpful for the folks that missed the chat, or couldn't sit 3 hours in a chat room on a Sunday. Even if it's just a few paragraphs and bullet points.

DGC and YAC. Started to enjoy YACs proof of stake rewards a few days ago.

A few things:

1. Would it be possible to show current network hashrate for each of the coins? That info would be AWESOME for judging overall coin health but may be a bit out of scope to coinchoose (if you do it, a graph like you have of the prices would be the cat's meow).

2. What about total market voume trade (in BTC) for each of the coins over the past 24 hours? Another crucial bit of info in deciding which coin to mine.

3. Total coin marketcap would be a valuable one to see too... not as crucial as the first two.

The FTC fiasco fallout and cleanup should be fun. I'm mining DGC myself.

Does bigvern have any postmortem report from the incident today? If not, he needs to write one. Insufficient communication during issues is one of the biggest things that will kill users' trust in an internet product. I personally am hesitant to use cryptsy for anymore trading until I learn exactly what happened, what the impact was, and how it was resolved (and I've moved around 15 or so BTC through it over the past week).

sal, I think it would be very useful to have a column in CC showing the total volume (expressed in BTC or dollars) across all exchanges combined for each coin in the list. It doesn't do much against the automining issue (unless that tool is enhanced to factor it in), but if you are just blindly mining whateven coin at the top, you could find yourself in a situation where you have a bunch of coins to unload but no market depth to unload it in, thus leading to a price crash situation if you were to just go ahead with it (as many miners would do).

Market depth is so very crucial in my choice about what coin to mine, personally.

That one guy has done the most effective job of destroying an altcoin I've ever seen. Genius.

weareken has been mining with that kind of draw for awhile now on and off. Didn't seem to cause problems in the past....

Looks like blocks are still being generated fine: http://btb.cryptocoinexplorer.com/chain/BitBar

Interesting. Notice the slowly and steadily decreasing profitability on the coinchoose chart.

* Bug in some part of the software?
* Attack on the network (doubtful, considering the number of confirmations required)?
* Something else?

My bet is on a bug somewhere in the wallet code, if both the blocks aren't being paid out on, and the coin sites are showing bogus values. I've started my wallet back up and am tailing the debug log now.

I was wondering why it dumped so fast. Wondering how much excess was credited, and where it came from (i.e. other people's accounts? an exchange reserve account?). One more reason I try not to keep any coins on any exchange longer than is absolutely necessary.

For those who aren't getting the payouts as advertised/estimated at pushpools, I've found much better luck using a P2Pool with this one. I tried the top two pushpools and was getting less of the expected payout. With the p2pool I'm on (http://p2pool-dgc.com:9500/static/) I am getting what I should.

I was mining at digi.cryptcoins.net and getting less than half of the advertised amount. Took it up with the pool owner.

Switched to digicoinpool.com ...we'll see how it goes.

Anyone having payout issues with http://digi.cryptcoins.net/ ?? I've been mining for a few days here on it. The site (along with coinwarz.com) says I should be getting around 3000 coins a day, however I am getting a fraction of that (about 1200 coins a day based on the rate over the most recent 12 hours of mining). Getting off this pool until I hear some feedback on why this could be. I know DGC has a higher stales rate, but this is beyond that.

Yup, started to get stake rewards on my wallet. Much higher than I envisioned it being too, yay!

If you encrypt your wallet (which you should)  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=187714.0 is helpful for anyone interested in how to generate stake. I just have a yacoind that runs on a linux server I have so that it doesn't rely on my windows workstation being up.

What time will the release be? The topic says "in 3 hours" but since it was an edit, the timestamp on it is 11AM. Could we get a solid time?

There are other options, such as some kind of future integration with the NameCoin alias namespace (still under development), or some other bitcoin address DNS-type interface. Hell, even some system such as adding  a TXT DNS record to a domain with the address in it could prove itself to be useful...and then if the user enters bitcoinstore.com in the payment field, we could just do a DNS lookup for the TXT entry with the appropriate name associated with that domain, and pull the address in through that. It's not P2P like NetCoin aliases, but it uses technology that exists today.

I've seen posts by several folks recently that are starting to mine yacoin on CPUs are running into very disappointing returns. Especially for a coin as new as yacoin, this could be an issue that hinders adoption. I think that possibly the N adjustments have been coming a bit too fast (or the block reward is too little) too early on. I see the difficulty is continuing to drop after the last N increase, but I wonder if that will be enough. The coin still only has a circulation of a bit over 3MM with about half of that being amassed in the top 10 addresses. Yacoin's unique CPU potential aside, the viability of any new currency lies in its ability to be distributed initially in as wide and efficient a manner as possible, rewarding early adopters but also encouraging newcomers to adopt it as the monetary base expands. I fear we may be turning some folks off to the coin. The expectation is that these folks not think they're becoming "rich", but more get more of a reward than 10 cents worth of coin for mining it on their CPU for a day.

This issue has two possible solutions: tweaking the coin parameters down the road a bit, or continuing to work to increase per-coin valuation through other means. The first could backfire, however. What is everyone's opinion on this?

I thought about your idea and I personally like it. Such a system could actually be implemented as a sort of "convention", instead of hardcoding the ledger system/protocol factoring in these different coin denominations. So for instance, let's say that there are 11million netcoins in existance. The highest denomination would be a "gold" netcoin, each of which is equal to 1 whole netcoin. Then, you have silver netcoins which are 1/10th of a netcoin each, and bronze netcoins which are 1/100th. If you have 3.4563 netcoins, the client could display that automatically broken out as gold, silver and bronze, while the ledger still tracked it as 3.4563. Instead of having to track multiple types of coins, it' simply becomes a convention. As cliche as it sounds, I'd advocate working more with the "gold", "silver" and "bronze" denominations, or something that holds intrinsic meaning to folks, instead of arbitrary colors (why is a "red" netcoin worth more than a "blue" one?). "Large", "medium" and "small" could work too...e.g. I have 1 large netcoin, 5 mediums and 15 smalls.

EDIT: After thinking some more about the "display hack" method of denominating coins, I think it's probably too leaky an abstraction (e.g. exchanges would most likely continue to work with the whole coins and use decimals...cryptogeeks as well). The other method (using colored coins of some sort) would not be such a leaky abstraction, but could have its own issues when talking about things such as:
* how does a user easily convert between coins (e.g. from silver to gold)
* would you have separate exchanges for each coin type, or one exchange for one coin type and force people to that type to trade?
* etc.

Some more general comments: From my reading on these forums, my opinion is that people have a bias against low numbers of coins (higher numbers of coins and especially WHOLE coins are seen as "better" and "more desirable". Total float and per-coin valuation is almost secondary to most folks TO AN EXTENT -- not talking about BBQCoin levels here, but definitely avoiding bitbar levels at all costs). I think it's an intrinsic human property that is much older than currency itself. The first question is always "how many?", not "what is the conversation rate?" or "how many are outstanding total?"

Also, most people tend to hate working with decimal spaces. I think a lot can be done to drive coin adoption and innovation via harnessing our own collective observations about how people view and think about unit value of any kind of currency. Splitting the currency across 3 or 4 denominations to reduce decimal bloat has very pertinent corollaries in meat-space currency (both of a fiat and non-fiat nature) and I think most folks would take to it like ducks to water.

I've been designing and developing software for awhile now. What I've learned is that you can NEVER underestimate simplicity and a strong visual impact. Our company has had offerings that had a ton of technical chops around them, but at the end of the day the kinds of things that really jazz our clients up are the simpler things, such as the simplicity of the UI, or real-time dashboards where the info is all in one place. Emotions and excitement arise most around what the eye can see and the mind can quickly understand. These things can be just as important to general adoption as the technical chops, and should not be discounted. There is a certain kind of inherent complexity with cryptocurrencies (at least at this point in the game), but I think a lot can still be done without investing millions on hardware wallets, P2P payment networks, etc.

A good rule of thumb for me is if I witness trends like this on the forums (where most people tend to be computer savvy, investment savvy, or both), then the effect will like be magnified greatly once you start involving the general population. Us geeks have a tendency to write factors like this off as trivial, but we are living in a fishbowl when we do. Go ask enough people on the street and your assumptions will likely change. Many of those same people could become netcoin users if/when this does take off.

Soo...for this or some other coin, on the topic of CPU-based PoW:

I saw his post with the breakdown of algorithms over at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=64239.msg786472#msg786472 in that thread.

I am still a newb to the math involved with bitcoin. Would the radix sort/tree sort be thrown in there as an addition to the hashing work done, or to replace it? Hashing seems to be the glue that keeps the entire blockchain concept in place to me. In either case, what data would you be sorting/searching? Is this data stored in the blockchain to allow some kind of verification by other nodes? And if you're searching/sorting a lot of data and you are storing it, how do you prevent the blockchain/whatever from growing out of control?

I guess I am trying to figure out what the mechanics of how either of these algorithms would enable the brute force initial pass and easy verification system that bitcoin PoW currently uses, while keeping the blockchain size (or whatever transaction logging system would be used) size down.