New name proposal:

   Cappuccino

This give the feel of something common (reason why some seems to like bottlecaps), while not being cheap.

As a bonus, font-awesome (used widely by web developers) has already a clean and simple coffee symbol in it ( http://fontawesome.io/icon/coffee/ ). This may facilitate consistency and integration in web sites later. That is, a price followed by this coffee cup icon would be the branding for cappuccino coins.

(Not pushing for a change, just adding a proposal on the table in case there is a poll)


_{Edit: I did fix the spelling of cappuccino}

I also do not believe a name change to be a fix.

Still, here is a proposal if people are concern with the bottle/fallout angle:

Call them "cap"

Make cap a noun instead of an abbreviation. A cap is just a new denomination. This is no different than dollar, lire, bitcoin, baht, dinar...

Just drop the bottle/fallout part from the marketing, and use a neutral logo like any other coin (I suggest to go simple with a denomination character like BTC).

This might be the path of least resistance to resolve the "low value" perception without completely throwing away what made this coin (slightly) different.

Considering that CAP is likely to remain a very low "denomination" relative to bitcoin... bottlecaps seems to be an honest fit  

I am fine with dropping the bottlecap name, but I doubt it is the main problem.

Seems instead CAP is victim of its own good algo for difficulty adjustment, making it valuable to mine/dump at any price. Not the first to say it.

CAP main liquidity flow is from miners to a handful of investor waiting for the automated dump. CAP won't suddenly catch on while most investors are just doing bottom fishing.

What could be done?
  - Make it hard for automated mine/dump operation to be profitable. That would be a good differentiator among the alt coins.
  - Attract new investors with a higher POS.
  - Other idea?

Here is a make or break proposal for CAPs:
   Make the POS equivalent to at least 30% interest per year... for the next 10 years.
   For holders it means a doubling of their position every 3 years.

Why?

  Be bold. Capture the imagination and people will hold.

  Stay generic and conservative... and look forward to become irrelevant among most alt-coins.

===

Will the price crash? Who knows. The equilibrium between holders and what is left to trade might be an interesting experiment.

At this point I believe the design decision should be about *positioning* the coin among the holders.

Holders are the best at promoting and supporting a market. A coin needs "thousands" of evangelists to build confidence. A few dozen of developers and believers is not enough.

Of course inflation matters and some adjustment to POS beyond the 10 years has to be written in stone, but it is not a time to think conservatively.

Designing for the far future is irrelevant if a coin does not make it on short term.

It is about survival in the growing shadow of BTC... and a coin worth holding NOW could be among the few last still standing in people's wallet 10 years down the road.

Again:
   Be bold. Capture the imagination and people will hold.

(All IMHO)

0.255 BTC

0.25 BTC on the way to Balthazar for the cake... may be someone else would like to buy the beer or coffee?

Thanks. I also prefer that all the major changes/fixes to be done (and a bit time tested) while we are not on Cryptys/coinchoose and such... should be better to come back with a single solid 1.5 upgrade than "bothering" a larger crowd with multiple smaller upgrades.

Less upgrades -> Less confusion -> more confidence into the coin -> higher value -> me happy.

One way or another, I am very thankful to mullick and balthazar (and others if any) for the hard work on this issue.

In my reality, the wallet was broken and it was configured to not do POS mining. Just sharing my observation with the community.

I guess I just have to accept to remain ignorant/stupid in your 'forked' reality... good luck to you  

Thanks for keeping this up. Seems the safest is to use your chain as the de-facto reference. Without your effort we would be left in the dark until 1.5.

My mining wallet is now back in-synch with 16 connections (and growing), and back on your connection list.

Keep your judgment to yourself.

I had no stake mining in my broken wallet. The wallet was used only for solo mining @9MH/s. My wallets with stakes are offline.

Developers:
Is the block crawler THE reference no matter what ... or I should keep my wallet/chain running? I have now 23 connections to others.

Thanks.

Update: I did stop my solo mining and wallet and now redownloading the chain. I still would like to know if block crawler is THE reference no matter what. Thx.

===

getminigninfo @14:12:36
{
"blocks" : 90947,
"currentblocksize" : 1000,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 0.44385671,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"testnet" : false
}


getpeerinfo @14:12:37
[
{
"addr" : "192.241.222.102:34975",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1377526332,
"lastrecv" : 1377526332,
"conntime" : 1376919166,
"version" : 70000,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : true,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 80960,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "192.241.216.151:60823",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1377526332,
"lastrecv" : 1377526332,
"conntime" : 1377015948,
"version" : 70000,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : true,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 82569,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "69.9.152.126:57233",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1377526332,
"lastrecv" : 1377526332,
"conntime" : 1377288563,
"version" : 70000,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : true,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 87027,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "192.64.86.238:7685",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1377526333,
"lastrecv" : 1377526332,
"conntime" : 1377330841,
"version" : 70000,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 87785,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "198.144.156.122:52202",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1377526332,
"lastrecv" : 1377526332,
"conntime" : 1377368671,
"version" : 70000,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : true,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 88391,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "72.39.81.250:63772",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1377526332,
"lastrecv" : 1377526332,
"conntime" : 1377372978,
"version" : 70000,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : true,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 88441,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "91.235.254.37:35000",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1377526332,
"lastrecv" : 1377526332,
"conntime" : 1377435243,
"version" : 70000,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : true,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 89493,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "62.24.83.120:49454",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1377526332,
"lastrecv" : 1377526332,
"conntime" : 1377459443,
"version" : 70000,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : true,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 89898,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "80.229.2.127:60896",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1377526332,
"lastrecv" : 1377526012,
"conntime" : 1377461997,
"version" : 70000,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : true,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 89940,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "201.34.236.252:30338",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1377526335,
"lastrecv" : 1377526335,
"conntime" : 1377465040,
"version" : 70000,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : true,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 89982,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "80.198.94.98:7685",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1377526332,
"lastrecv" : 1377526332,
"conntime" : 1377476260,
"version" : 70000,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 90178,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "162.197.248.49:62787",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1377526332,
"lastrecv" : 1377526332,
"conntime" : 1377484148,
"version" : 70000,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : true,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 89486,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "5.150.212.9:56021",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1377526332,
"lastrecv" : 1377526332,
"conntime" : 1377484449,
"version" : 70000,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : true,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 90317,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "64.136.208.127:29381",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1377526332,
"lastrecv" : 1377526332,
"conntime" : 1377490814,
"version" : 70000,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : true,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 90422,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "114.198.9.122:10425",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1377526332,
"lastrecv" : 1377526332,
"conntime" : 1377499822,
"version" : 70000,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : true,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 90563,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "178.49.118.233:60592",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1377526332,
"lastrecv" : 1377526332,
"conntime" : 1377509018,
"version" : 70000,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : true,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 90702,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "194.141.43.4:64284",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1377526332,
"lastrecv" : 1377526332,
"conntime" : 1377510411,
"version" : 70000,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : true,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 90529,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "50.140.100.241:60453",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1377526332,
"lastrecv" : 1377526332,
"conntime" : 1377516905,
"version" : 70000,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : true,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 90824,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "109.60.111.123:64269",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1377526332,
"lastrecv" : 1377526332,
"conntime" : 1377522327,
"version" : 70000,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : true,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 90898,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "82.161.65.210:63128",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1377526332,
"lastrecv" : 1377526332,
"conntime" : 1377523983,
"version" : 70000,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : true,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 68696,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "87.183.14.3:51331",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1377526350,
"lastrecv" : 1377526349,
"conntime" : 1377525468,
"version" : 70000,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : true,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 0,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "223.64.62.171:21877",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1377526332,
"lastrecv" : 1377526332,
"conntime" : 1377525771,
"version" : 70000,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : true,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 90935,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "173.227.57.98:1147",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1377526332,
"lastrecv" : 1377526332,
"conntime" : 1377526182,
"version" : 70000,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : true,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 90944,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "69.9.117.241:58614",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1377526349,
"lastrecv" : 1377526349,
"conntime" : 1377526348,
"version" : 70000,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : true,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 90947,
"banscore" : 0
}
]

Was on the same chain as block crawler for ~5 days and I had >30 connections steady (as high as 43 sometimes).

I was even on the block crawler list all this time.

BUT

Woke up this morning and found there was a fork. I am now down to ~25 active connections and my getmininginfo differ from the block crawler. I am not on their list anymore.

How do I know which fork is "right"? Is the block crawler THE reference no matter what?


My getmininginfo @12:47:14
{
"blocks" : 90889,
"currentblocksize" : 1000,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 0.56681370,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"testnet" : false
}

Block Crawler at the same time
Block Count: 90,900
Block Reward: 10
Difficulty: 0.62017375
Connections: 25

Mullick: Great. I will review the changes once published... I know a thing or two about portability issues (I am the author of http://ta-lib.org ).

John: I understand many relates bottlecaps to fallout, but to me (I do not play such games) the radioactive sign is giving me a weird vibe. I am hopeful that this is an optional skin. No big deal one way or the other, just my humble feedback.

Both: Thanks for the updates. Greatly appreciated.

mullick,

Can you please give us a short update? Silence worries me.

I don't ask dates for fixes, just something like "we suspect something related to x" or "I need help from someone to do y" etc...

I am a SW engineer and starting to look at the CAP code (at my own slow but sustain pace). If there is an area you would like more eyeballs on, then please let me know.

Thanks.

ISAWHIM: Just in case you did not know, mullick is the active maintainer/developer of CAP, may be you can reduce a bit the paranoia setting

I did follow mullick instructions, seems fine for me with 8 active peers now. I will update my post if it goes bad.


getmininginfo on August 18, 2013, ~03:10 PM UTC:

{
"blocks" : 79651,
"currentblocksize" : 1000,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 1.18377558,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"testnet" : false
}

(LOL. Thanks vingaard for your imaginative feedback)

If this is any consolation to the community, I am also almost done on the subject  

I like to bring wild ideas to the table... sometime it turns into something good, sometimes not.

Might be one of these cases going nowhere.

At least the thread did not degenerate in a "my coin needs less zeros than yours" battle  

I agree... it is just confusing for >= 1

What if we use instead the ASCII of small numbers in a circle (or parenthesis for older 7-bits ASCII)?

0.013  ->   (1)13 -> ①13
0.0013 ->   (2)13 -> ②13
1.0013 -> 1.(2)13 -> 1.②13


Where (n) would still read as "n zeros"

I like the graphic version that simply feel like a "zero" with a multiplier inside.

Just food for thought.

Thanks for giving it some thought.

I will just cover the OP proposal here. digitalindustry proposal differ a bit and I would prefer each to be discuss in their own thread to avoid confusion.

0.13   -> 0|13 (but I would just use 0.13 on a website)
0.013  -> 1|13
0.0013 -> 2|13

and so on...

1.0098 -> 1.2|98 (read as-is: 1 dot 2 zeros 98) but frankly I would not use a "point zero notation" for 1 and above. Might be too much to digest.

For CoinBuzz:
320.0000012 -> 320.5|12 (320 dot 5 zeros 12). Working but not pretty.

You might be right, adding spaces might be just enough to solve the readability issue. As a bonus, it facilitate to see the milli/micro boundaries.