Thank you for putting the fork at least a month out...I don't follow every coin closely and only just now realized ANC was forking by chance from another thread (myriad). Hate it when coins decide to fork and only give a couple weeks notice. Now I got to get to work compiling the new version in Linux...tomorrow.

Edit: Compiled with no issues.

First thing to do is make a backup of your wallet.dat file and save it somewhere safe....

You may need to delete your blockchain and download it from scratch. Use the bootloader (wrong name...forget what it's called) that was posted earlier in this thread to make that happen faster.

I think POS is interesting. Something is needed since the hashrate is so low on this coin. I feel I am the only miner at times. I am not familiar with POSv3 specifically but trust DH's judgement. Just realize that the number of wallet clients online (staking) will most likely be very very low.

Whoa...hope it was not me you are referring to?! I read back a few posts and I did not see anyone saying you were an incompetent software developer. The part where I stated 'not handling things very well' was in reference to PR not development!

People use the term dev very loosely to mean anyone working on a coin not the actual software development of it. I apologize if you felt that comment was directed towards you specifically....I don't think anyone questions your contribution or skills!

I am interested to see what happens after the coin reduction. I think initially miners may not know about the change. If they are mining on their own or through a pool that does not update then we will be left with two different blockchains. Supposedly the longer chain is supposed to win but that can be circumvented if the devs convince everyone to use the new version...specifically the exchanges. If the exchanges do not agree with the change then we have a real mess on our hands. Arguably both sides have rightful claims...I'm sure the devs will simply state to the miners/exchanges that did not update "too bad" and move on...at that point the people on the longer chain can continue on their own with the alternate blockchain releasing a client with the older specs trying to convince people to use that version or cut their losses.

The right way to do this is to code in voting on the change allowing the miners to decide what happens (see bitcoin) but that is not happening here due to this change being made specifically to hurt/punish the miners. I even came up with a viable dialogue of "extending the mining time from 3 years to 30" as a reason for the change as that seems nicer than what is being communicated and is ultimately what is happening (I think...have not reviewed the code).

All of this is entertaining to me....but I can see it being financially harmful to others if they are not aware.

Ultimately the end result might be a reduction to about 200-400 Mh/s on the new chain if that's the one everyone decides to end up using.

I myself do not particularly like the new client as it relies on graphic drivers that not everyone has. Specifically it would not work in a VM but that may have been addressed in newer builds. It also required an "installation" which I don't like but I can get around that by installing it on a burner system and copying the exe.

I prefer to use 1.3.0.0 but suppose I will have to upgrade if everyone agrees to start using the new specs (version 3.0). It appears as v3.0.0.0 (the one that reduces the reward) was officially released (mistakenly?) 6 days ago but no announcement has been made.

I understand people have the best intentions but I can't seem to think it is not being handled very well....like I said....entertaining.

Not sure if I should bother posting any longer as I am starting to feel like I am just being a downer but am just trying to provide guidance from experience. I have NO financial motivation even though I am a top 30(?) holder of this coin. I generally just hold on to all my digital currency other than LTC/BTC..perhaps hoping one of them will explode one day but doubtful any ever will.  

I can be blamed for not stepping up to help the situation but I honestly don't have the desire to become involved other than my random spats on the message board.

If you are using Edge alcurex.com does not work with it. Try Chrome instead.

Will be interesting to see what happens to the hashrate if/when the reward gets reduced.

Currently it hovers around 2-4 Gh/s. If that is reduced by 1/10 it may be in the 200-400 Mh/s range. With about 3 BTC of buy support (as of now) it is probably too little for anyone to bother attacking but the potential is there. If there was a significant amount of buy support I would definitely be worried. It would be way too tempting for someone to pass up by doing a double spend attack.

I think people are asking about the reduction because it really hasn't been made clear if a decision has been made. From this thread it appears as it is still being considered/discussed but from the GitHub commits it seems as the people in control of the source intend to go forward with it.

It should also be taken into consideration the this coin does not having much use or function at the moment so people invested in it may not be following developments closely. I know how frustrating that situation can be for developers, etc but it is reality. I applaud the devs for their commitment and wish them the best of luck with this decision.

One nice thing about BTC is that I can invest in it and be assured that the specs of the coin will never change. I suppose that is one reason why so many BTC purists consider Alts worthless.

OMG! Thank you for a good laugh today! I like it.

There we go...a valid point to reduce the reward. "To extend the amount of time before relying on fee's to support the network." Currently (I don't know what fee's are implemented but I don't think much) if the block reward were to go away there is not enough incentive in fee's (no one is really using this coin in any significant volume) to have anyone continue mining. The coin would basically be dead. It's hard to look ahead 3 years but I would imagine the volume of transactions would not be sufficient to generate enough money for miners in fee's.

So we are proposing to change the reward structure to extend mining out to 30 years. We are not proposing to change the overall supply (again)...just extending the time it takes to get there. I'm cool with that. 

That does not solve the issue of our relatively low hash rate but will leave that discussion on the table.

Is this really a problem though? If someone chooses to sell their coins let them. Miners are simply getting paid at a discount for providing services to the CSC blockchain. People who see value in acquiring CSC will be able to accumulate more at a reduced price. By reducing the reward to 1 CSC you are immediately and artificially increasing the value for current coin holders...myself included...but is that what we want? In the end unless services start to materialize it wont matter.

It also set's a bad precedence in manipulating the currency....just food for thought. I am not opposed to doing so but lets be clear about what is being done and why.

As a business owner I would be hesitant to utilize a currency that is manipulated in the way CSC has been. It already has gone through at least one changing of the rules on top of a "hostile" takeover so who's to say it wont again. I should probably not speak up as I don't want to spook any potential investors or business plans.

For example...one could release a client that increases the reward to 100 and provide enough hashing power and nodes to make the change stick. That is the danger of a low hash rate...anyone can come in convinced enough people to agree and cause a fork if they so desired...it's how @casinocoin gained ownership from transcoder....but it is not a problem with just CSC...all coins with a low hashrate are in danger of such a thing.

Another way to stop the dumping is for the buy walls to be taken down. Let the price decrease to a point where the miners simply move on to something else. Of course that also introduces the low hashrate problem...which could be solved with AuxPOW.

I would say....decide on making whatever changes once and for all. Weigh the benefits of staying with a 30 second blocktime (bloat) vs 60 seconds. Consider whatever diff algo is necessary...figure out if AuxPOW is the way to go to ensure the blockchain is secure with enough hashing power to thwart an attack (it will happen if the coin starts to see real value), decide on the mining reward structure, etc.

Wow, Casinocoin has a great leader here guys. I really am impressed with you ajochems. Sorry for sounding so sour/flippant in my other posts...I seem to be turning into "that guy" lately.

I feel I need to refute a number of statements made by ajochems. If not for the devs at least for others that may stumble upon this thread so they are not misguided by what is said....even though it is way past my bed time.  

First, as is commonly known a blockchain is secured with a disparate amount of hashrate. If it is too low it can be forked to allow double spends. Basic concept in crypto. I won't bother to explain or defend further. A coin absolutely needs a high hash rate to stay secure.

This is not needed if there is sufficient hash on the coin.

With AuxPOW you are free to mine independent of any other coin. It does not tie one coin to another. It allows you to mine any POW coin and also mine an AuxPOW coin at the same time. If one wanted to mine an AuxPOW coin directly like it was a regular POW coin you could although it would be a waste to do so as you could also be mining another POW coin in addition to the AuxPOW coin. In other words if CSC was an AuxPOW coin you could choose to mine it independent of any other coin just as if it was a regular POW coin. AuxPOW allows a coin to gain a massive amount of hashrate to secure it's blockchain and avoid forks and double spends.

I would believe any casino would be happier with a coin that had a massive amount of hash power securing it's blockchain than one that could be easily taken over. Currently CSC only has about 3 Gh/s. This is very low and I would venture to guess it would be cut down dramatically once/if the block reward is reduced putting it in an even greater risk.

All right...off to sleep. My comments are meant just to inform not dictate any direction or another.......I stopped caring long ago.  
I also won't bother debating or educating further...people can do their own research....hehe I must be getting a bit grumpy these days..already exerted too much effort in typing up this post.

Do you think POS incentivizes hoarding? I am inclined to believe so...

Currently the 30 second block time is doing nothing but bloating the blockchain with empty blocks. Even with a 1 minute block time most would be still be empty but I think it is a good compromise. Like @casinocoin said, services do not have to wait for a transaction to be fully verified before allowing use. Transactions can be seen in the mempool without even one verified block as is common with BTC services.

What do people think about AuxPOW? It will dramatically increase the hashrate in turn securing the blockchain. That combined with a 1 CSC reward and a 1 minute block time sounds like a good combination/viable solution.

The argument against AuxPOW is that miners get CSC for free and will immediately sell....but if they are only getting 1 CSC per minute max it does not do as much damage?

Since people are entertaining a fork.....

You could also consider raising the block target time from 30 seconds to 1 minute.

1 minute is more than adequate and would cut the total coins produced per day in half without decreasing the block reward. A gradual block reduction could be done rather than the proposed reducing to 1 CSC immediately (https://github.com/casinocoin/casinocoin/issues/18). That would keep some of the hashrate on the coin but I can see the appeal of coding to 1 CSC instead of messing with block halfing.

If CSC was immediately cut to 1 CSC I fear miners will bail. I haven't been keeping up with the latest developments in blockchains but last I looked POSv was nice. If done right it would eliminate the need for miners completely while still allowing the blockchain to continue. I also like AuxPOW though.

So I possibly think....AuxPOW with a 1 minute blocktime and 1 CSC reward.

Anyway, just some thoughts since that box Pandora owns was opened.  

OMG! Entertaining read if nothing else....and here I thought Cryptcracker's credibility couldn't go any lower.  

Really? I don't know...have seen it soo much here that I would think it was something more than that? I honestly am curious. Not disparaging the use of the term...just wanting to find out why a lot of people use it.

What is a "data hall"? Have seen that posted on btctalk a lot. Don't you all mean "data center"?!

Google search did not come up with much..first result to "what is a data hall" comes back with this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_center


....so why do some of you say "data hall" when it appears it is really "data center"?

Sorry to hijack this thread but it has been buggin me for a while.

Happy 4-20 day!

He is most likely taking about the twitter giveaway.

Yay! Good job!!!