Liquid blocks concept is definitely interesting, could be an incredible solution to transaction time problem.  Any way to see it working?  Will the explorer show the different blocktimes/emission adjustments?

> Notices insane pre-mine and obvious dumpcoin


> Tries to download wallet anyways because he figures he can maybe still make a buck


Welcome to the crypto-bubble

@danycoman so the concern is that, because coindev1 is mining at the same time he is developing, you're afraid he will dump on the market?

I understand the concern - it's the same reason I hate coins with big pre-mines.  The concern is the same, that dev will dump on the market.  But at the same time, the dev does need to have some coins, right?  Otherwise, the dev has no reason to grow the coin's value.

I think @coindev1 is trying to address some of these concerns, by stating publicly that he will not be selling, and by offering screenshots of his wallet.  That is more than other devs from other projects do.  It's always a isk with any coin that the dev will dump.  It's just not realistic to expect a dev to promise not to mine.  Even if a dev says he is not mining, there can be no proof of that.  I think @coindev1 has given us no reason not to trust his intentions, so we should believe he'll be an okay dev until he does something worse than other devs do.  Him choosing to mine does not make him worse than other devs, in my opinion.

@danycoman I think you must have a lot of coins, because you run the biggest pool, right?  So we might also be afraid you will dump.  But I think this is a good project, and if everyone is smart, we can all profit in the long term if we hold until the value of the coin grows.  This will make sense if the commercial projects are real.  If you think there is even a chance it is real, then I suggest you try to stay neutral on this coin.  

And even if you don't want to spend your time being part of the team anymore, at least do not directly attack the coin.  You have a right to tell everyone that the dev is mining, and let everyone else decide if they want to invest in the coin anyways.  But going out of your way to damage the coin without more proof that this is a scam doesn't save the community from anything, and it doesn't help you keep what value you have from pool fees.

Edit: changed some phrasing and made some corrections.

Hmm despite all of the troubles, a 23-page thread after two days can only be a good sign.  I guess people don't agree with my initial concerns that the premine was too high, it seems like despite that and despite the problems, most people really want to stay engaged in this project.  Somewhat impressive, imagine how much interest there will be once you actually have the chain moving properly with a pool (I still think you might have had even more interest with a smaller premine, but that's just my opinion and it helps that you're paying restitution from your premine).

I agree.  @coindev1, you need a cleaner Top Post, right now it's just a wall of text.  Do you need help?

I think it's really encouraging that @coindev1 is committing not to dump his coins, as no shitcoin dev would do this.  That said, taking screenshots every week doesn't necessarily prevent you from dumping anything.  You could still sell your coins whenever you want to, and then just leave without ever providing another screenshot.  A better way might be to commit to sending a large % of your balance to an escrow every month. (Edit: if you don't want to use escrow that's okay, I think that's a lot to ask of a dev.  It's just a suggestion.  Another solution is in the next paragraph).

If you don't want to use an escrow, I think a better verification process than screenshots might be if you get a blockchain explorer up and running.  That way, once you tell us your wallet address, we can monitor that wallet's balance.  Anyone can photoshop a screengrab.  It's not about questioning your integrity, it's about building confidence for investors through less exploitable methods.  Can we get similar assurances from other devs?  

I also think @coindev1 you should try to figure out some way to reconcile with @danycoman.  I'm sure there are two sides to whatever dispute you're having, and you both probably feel the other person is being unreasonable.  Is there a way to come together?  @coindev1 has been doing a lot of dev work, and @danycoman has been trying hard to publicize the coin and run a pool, so you should both want to see the coin succeed more than you should want coming out on top in a dispute.

@danycoman can you more specifically describe why you feel this is a scam?  Is it because you were promised a bounty for helping with the listings but weren't paid?  Or something like that?  Comments like "You just want to sell tens of millions of coins!" make it sound like you're afraid @coindev1 is going to dump his coins, but he's at least trying to offer a solution (providing wallet screenshots) to limit that concern.

I'm not sure "It's okay to have premine" applies, even when disclosed, to a 58.8% premine. (edit: but I get your point, there can be good reasons)

Am I wrong that the first block had 588,000,000 coins, representing a pre-mine of over 50%?

I went to the debug console and typed in "getblockbynumber 1"

Is there a premine?

That's some stellar support, kudos.


To those too lazy to read back:

@newcoindev1 has hinted that CoinExchange is coming late Aug or early Sept, and also hinted that Cryptopia is coming mid Sept.  He has also hinted that there will be a commercial project related to CHRC.  I don't know if that means the project incorporates CHRC, backs CHRC, or CHRC backs the project, but regardless, that's exciting news.  And he also hinted it would be a project worth more than $1 million, and said more info would come after listing.

Now, I'm sure all of that info is fluid, and subject to change (e.g. who knows, maybe a listing will get unexpectedly pushed back a week or two).  And we should be just a little cautious about announcements of stuff to happen that has yet to be proven.  No need to doubt anyone's integrity, but at the same time this is the internet and until words are backed by actions, we have a right to be cautious in our optimism.  But personally, I think it's worth the gamble to wait for the listings.

"All accounts registered on bitcointalk.org after July 12, 2017 are not qualified."

Is there a plan to move this restriction as airdrops progress?

Like if you have an airdrop starting on September 12, couldn't you shift that cutoff to August 12?  That way you still require an account to have been active for a month, without people making a bunch of accounts just for an airdrop.

What OC settings you got?  I top out at 760 MH/s

Holy shit 200+ connected to pool, 1.3 MH/s hash.  People LOVE this project??  Nice work (despite some hiccups?)

Can someone explain this better?

Lets say I was mining on old chain with wallet address "1234".  Then the devs restart and move to new chain.  Suddenly, I am mining to wallet "1234" on new chain.  How do I recover what I mined on the new chain?  If I reinstall the windows wallet, I get a new address like "5678".  But my miner was mining to "1234" until I re-directed my miners to my new wallet address.

How do I open wallet "1234" on the updated blockchain?  I have a .wallet file from the old chain, but I can't seem to open that on the new chain.  Is this where I'm doing something wrong?

I apologize for the bad math, that was my mistake.  I still think holding 15% after two years is pretty high.  It's not a question of whether your intentions are to be trusted.  It's a question of whether the market will bear a 15% ownership stake in the devs' hands.  My guess is it won't, but this is just my analysis and time will tell who's right.

A 10% developer reward?  Every dev deserves a cut, but 10% is silly.  It's also short-sighted because a smaller reward of 1% to 3% would actually end up being worth more than a 10% reward, because you're going to lose a lot of interested parties.  No one seems to understand this math:



EDIT: I TOTALLY fucked up some math.  See dev response below.  The supply will outgrow what the devs hold quicker than I thought.  I stand by my comments on 10% still being high, but I do apologize for my bad math.

I just realized: devs claim that pre-mine is 300 million.  Yet 300 million was distributed by block 3,656 (i.e. the first 3656 blocks already contained the pre-mine), which was over 46 days ago.  We started today at well over block 30,000.   This means well over 26,300 blocks were mined before today, which (at a reward of 560) implied almost 15 million MORE coins mined before today's ANN on top of the 300 million pre-mine.  Please explain this discrepancy?

Edit: all of this can be seen in the block explorer, for anyone wondering where the numbers came from.

Edit2: Explanation immediately below makes sense I guess, coin was actually launched July 1 it seems.

I would call this a rare case of a well-explained pre-mine:


I think there was some kind of ICO, and it seems like very little of the pre-mine will be dumped on the market anytime soon.

Been mining at http://superiorcoinpool.com/# for at least 10 mins.  Total Hashes Submitted: 3748521 (I'm doing over 2 KH/s) and several blocks have been found.   Yet Pending Balance = 0.  What's up with that?

Edit: never mind, just saw that maturity is 60 blocks.  So it will take a while to confirm a pending balance.

PC wallet won't run for me, a black box pops up in the middle as if something is loading (and it asked me to allow it through my firewall as all qts do) but then it never loads.

Am I supposed to run something besides SuperiorCoin.exe?  There's like 6 other executables.

It's the web wallet at http://the-superior-coin.com