Your arguments also make little sense.
Your proposal makes little sense too. I see absolutely no reason why you should be entitled to more. It's a question of getting less, people have calculated their investment without realising that the IPO is, essentially, open-ended. Ok, fair enough. Thankyou for helping me with my decision. |
|
|
|
Perhaps now is the time to reconsider the IPO, with this and other news in the near future, people investing today can risk their money with significantly more confidence than those who invested a week ago. I'm not suggesting to close the IPO, but the reward should be looked at.
So you honestly think that one week advance entitles you to more? For what? Yes, you might perceive the risk to be lower now, but nobody forced you to invest a week earlier, you could have waited till now, that's what I was recommending anyway - invest small and gradually increase as you see things develop. Also keep in mind, that you have invested during the safe period, where you knew the IPO won't be closed. Now people have to gamble every day. Hmmmmmm......... One week ago there was nothing other than your post here, today there is actually some software. That's a big step, as evidenced by the sudden rash of investment since you released the test software.To be honest, I'm not that impressed with your reply, it's quite defensive - I made a simple, polite proposal - that is all. Your arguments also make little sense and it is quite normal for IPOs to be operated in stages. |
|
|
|
So, for the client I've decided to use an embedded browser instead of native interface. This approach has many advantages: - easy to program
- dynamic interface, much more flexible than native
- easily skinnable and can be made to look pretty
- clear separation of UI code and core functions
- portable: html/js code is cross-platform
- looks the same on all platforms
- native hyperlinking, useful for the built-in "blockchain explorer"
- localization is much easier
I considered embedding Google Chrome or Firefox, but they are huge - tens of megabytes! So for Windows client I've decided to go with IE. Yes, it's not particularly fast or smart, but it does the job and is included in every version of Windows, so the client will be small. Currently, the exe file is just 86 Kb and the icon takes 32 of them  So here's a test version: https://simcoin.info/simcoin_v01.zipplease run it and tell me if everything is Ok. The logo is a transparent PNG, it shouldn't have any white borders (unless you are still using IE6 ). Click on buttons. The last one sends a packet to simcoin.info server and waits for reply. This is to test firewalls and other networking issues. Perhaps now is the time to reconsider the IPO, with this and other news in the near future, people investing today can risk their money with significantly more confidence than those who invested a week ago. I'm not suggesting to close the IPO, but the reward should be looked at. |
|
|
|
How many threads does this coin need?  |
|
|
|
I know I am now going to get accused of being a pump and dumper by those too emotionally attached to this coin, but how can that be true when I have less than 500 coins? Or is it 250? Or will it be 125?
How about I just give you 250 coins? The idea here is to move forward and correct the error, not rip anyone off. I don't want your coins and I'm not suggesting that anyone is trying to screw anybody, this is all about the perception of devs being able to take coins without any mandate - please try to take me seriously. |
|
|
|
You seem to forget what the function of this is: money. As long as people find the privacy afforded to be favourable, it will have a usage and monetary value. This is the whole point.
You seem to forget that people need to be able to trust their "money" also - this coin will have a reputation of devs literally taking money off people to "solve" technical problems they don't necessarily understand and trying to hide that fact with flawed maths. There is a danger that this coin will go the same way as Myriad, becoming nothing more than a technical exercise for miners and geeks without any possible real world usage. End users don't care about emission rates and algorithms but they do care about the contents of their wallets and whether the devs feel entitled to raid them - it could be seen as the behaviour of a centralised currency. I know I am now going to get accused of being a pump and dumper by those too emotionally attached to this coin, but how can that be true when I have less than 500 coins? Or is it 250? Or will it be 125? Also, if halving people's balances "has no real world effect" on people, how does not halving benefit me? You can't have it both ways, it makes a difference or it doesn't. This biggest hurdle of crypto and mass adoption is it's perceived dodgy reputation - this move really doesn't help that image because it adds to the genuine fear, uncertainty and doubt that already exists. Ignore public perception of your coin at your peril. |
|
|
|
So long as the process is fair and transparent it makes no difference what the number is... n or n/2 is the same relative value so long as the /2 is applied to everyone. Correcting this now will avoid people accusing the coin of a favourable premine for people who mined in the first week.
No, not true. Your share of the 18,000,000 coins is being halved - rightly or wrongly. Also, a favourable premine for early adopters is far from uncommon - I'm not saying it's right or wrong, there are arguments for each. Right, and no one involved with this coin wanted or wants a favorable premine. Well, maybe other than you, that is. Oh here we go........ I have valid questions, brush me off if you want, the questions will remain. |
|
|
|
Moving discussion to more relevant thread, previous found here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=578192.msg6364026#msg6364026I have to say that I am surprised that such an idea is even being countenanced - there are several obvious arguments against it. Perception - what kind of uproar would happen if this was tried on a more established coin. How can users be expected to trust a coin where it is perceived that the devs are able and willing to "dip" into people's wallets to solve problems. Technically - people are trying to suggest that this will make no difference since it applies to reward and supply, which *might* be fair enough if the cap was halved also, but it isn't. People's holdings in the coin are being halved, however it is dressed up. Market price - How can introducing uncertainty in the contents of people's wallets possibly help market price? I may well be making a fool of myself here, but I have never heard of such a fix before, unless you had savings in a Cypriot bank - has this ever been done for another coin? This coin wasn't working as advertised. It was supposed to be mined slowly like BTC but under the current emission schedule, 39% would be mined by the first year and 86% by the fourth year. Those targets have been moved out by a factor of 2, i.e. 86% mined by year 8, which is more like BTC's 75% by year 8. So the cap has been moved out much further into the future, constraining present and near-term supply, which is what determines the price. Why not a reduction in block reward of slightly more than half to bring it into line with the proposed graph? That would avoid all sorts of perceptual problems, would not upset present coin holders and be barely noticeable to future miners since less than one percent of coins have been mined so far, the alteration would be very small? Because that still turns into a pre-mine or instamine where a few people got twice as many coins as everyone else in the first week. This was always a bug, and should be treated as such. I hardly think that significantly less than 1% over the course of a week or so constitutes an instamine. The crypto world is pretty brutal, bitcointalk even more so - I'll watch with interest and shut up in the meantime.....  |
|
|
|
So long as the process is fair and transparent it makes no difference what the number is... n or n/2 is the same relative value so long as the /2 is applied to everyone. Correcting this now will avoid people accusing the coin of a favourable premine for people who mined in the first week.
No, not true. Your share of the 18,000,000 coins is being halved - rightly or wrongly. Also, a favourable premine for early adopters is far from uncommon - I'm not saying it's right or wrong, there are arguments for each. |
|
|
|
Moving discussion to more relevant thread, previous found here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=578192.msg6364026#msg6364026I have to say that I am surprised that such an idea is even being countenanced - there are several obvious arguments against it. Perception - what kind of uproar would happen if this was tried on a more established coin. How can users be expected to trust a coin where it is perceived that the devs are able and willing to "dip" into people's wallets to solve problems. Technically - people are trying to suggest that this will make no difference since it applies to reward and supply, which *might* be fair enough if the cap was halved also, but it isn't. People's holdings in the coin are being halved, however it is dressed up. Market price - How can introducing uncertainty in the contents of people's wallets possibly help market price? I may well be making a fool of myself here, but I have never heard of such a fix before, unless you had savings in a Cypriot bank - has this ever been done for another coin? This coin wasn't working as advertised. It was supposed to be mined slowly like BTC but under the current emission schedule, 39% would be mined by the first year and 86% by the fourth year. Those targets have been moved out by a factor of 2, i.e. 86% mined by year 8, which is more like BTC's 75% by year 8. So the cap has been moved out much further into the future, constraining present and near-term supply, which is what determines the price. Why not a reduction in block reward of slightly more than half to bring it into line with the proposed graph? That would avoid all sorts of perceptual problems, would not upset present coin holders and be barely noticeable to future miners since less than one percent of coins have been mined so far, the alteration would be very small? |
|
|
|
Moving discussion to more relevant thread, previous found here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=578192.msg6364026#msg6364026I have to say that I am surprised that such an idea is even being countenanced - there are several obvious arguments against it. Perception - what kind of uproar would happen if this was tried on a more established coin? How can users be expected to trust a coin where it is perceived that the devs are able and willing to "dip" into people's wallets to solve problems? Technically - people are trying to suggest that this will make no difference since it applies to reward and supply, which *might* be fair enough if the cap was halved also, but it isn't. People's holdings in the coin are being halved, however it is dressed up. Market price - How can introducing uncertainty in the contents of people's wallets possibly help market price? I may well be making a fool of myself here, but I have never heard of such a fix before, unless you had savings in a Cypriot bank - has this ever been done for another coin?
|
|
|
|
No the eventual total is still 18 million in a LONG time (many, many years off). In the short term the mining reward over time is being cut in half both prospectively and retrospectively.
I am probably mis-understanding this - are you saying our present wallet balances will be halved? Yeah that seems to be how the fix will be done, although the development team is still working out the details. Everyone equally, so no one is adversely effected. It is just that new coins will each be worth twice as much as old coins. The total outstanding circulation will be cut in half as well. Best to discuss this on the main thread though. Replied on main thread. Here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364174#msg6364174 |
|
|
|
No the eventual total is still 18 million in a LONG time (many, many years off). In the short term the mining reward over time is being cut in half both prospectively and retrospectively.
I am probably mis-understanding this - are you saying our present wallet balances will be halved? |
|
|
|
Wave 2 coins are being distributed in the next 24 hours.
I thought you were dead........  |
|
|
|
Congratulations to Crimeacoin community! We have mined over 1 million coins since the release date.  WOW! If only somebody wanted them......  |
|
|
|
Wow thanks. I'll keep an eye over there in case anyone wants to do a Chinese pool. Thanks for that post! For fucks sake, there's already a limecoin and I'm not gonna get up at 5am for the launch.... midnight NY and 9pm west coast - shitcoin.
That's ok, they are using LIM, we are using LC That's ok? You must be morons. Edit: Just noticed it's scrypt too......... brilliant. |
|
|
|
|
For fucks sake, there's already a limecoin and I'm not gonna get up at 5am for the launch.... midnight NY and 9pm west coast - shitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, I put in a little BTC a few hours ago and it's not showing up on my account page yet. I assumed the page would update automatically, but perhaps it doesn't, does anyone know?
|
|
|
|
Acquire a piece of SourceCoin - the child of Coins Source.
Simply tell us what you think or what you would like to see on Coins Source.com, on this post, and get awarded 17 SRC.
This is available to the next 35 replies.
Just PM your SRC address and post number, that's all!
Can you add some interviews - video & audio - make pod-casts. I think it's easier and more fun to absorb information that way compared to reading sometimes. It would be a lot more work too, but well worth it. This is a matter of opinion, given the choice of audio, video or written articles, I always choose to read. |
|
|
|
|
I'm interested to know why you have removed the total btc investment figure from your IPO webpage?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
