Jesus christ guys, an entire page of the thread dedicated to people trying to dump the coin isn't gonna help it any. If we all donated to a faucet, pool, or just started a huge giveaway, that might help.
I'm not looking to dump, I'm only looking to cash out 1/5 my current shares right now, with only 1 million of these to ever be mined it technically should be worth 21x what BTC is worth, so selling at 800/1 BTC or $1 each is actually a steal Yeah, makes total sense. Did you know there are about an equal number of cocks and vaginas on the planet? Therefore, we should desire both equally. I thank crypto-currency for revealing to me that I am bisexual. You see how stupid that sounds? You are using the same logic. Just like that old nugget "LTC should be 1/4 of BTC" crap. It's supply AND demand, not just supply we consider. Boy, you're totally not a prick.  ...If you had bothered to read 3 posts below that one you would have read this gem: "lol, exactly why I put 'technically' in there, realistically there's no way it would ever see that price" No, not even technically should it be that price. There will be 1,000,000 total so take the price of CGB as a guide. We also need to consider that this is a niche coin within what is a niche market, doesn't have nearly the mass appeal of CGB. I like the coin, I like Dune, I like sci-fi, I am mining this coin and hold a fair chunk of it and would like it see it do well, but even I would say a fair price for SPICE is 0.0003 - 0.0006 BTC tops right now. |
|
|
|
Jesus christ guys, an entire page of the thread dedicated to people trying to dump the coin isn't gonna help it any. If we all donated to a faucet, pool, or just started a huge giveaway, that might help.
I'm not looking to dump, I'm only looking to cash out 1/5 my current shares right now, with only 1 million of these to ever be mined it technically should be worth 21x what BTC is worth, so selling at 800/1 BTC or $1 each is actually a steal Yeah, makes total sense. Did you know there are about an equal number of cocks and vaginas on the planet? Therefore, we should desire both equally. I thank crypto-currency for revealing to me that I am bisexual. You see how stupid that sounds? You are using the same logic. Just like that old nugget "LTC should be 1/4 of BTC" crap. It's supply AND demand, not just supply we consider. |
|
|
|
|
Jesus christ guys, an entire page of the thread dedicated to people trying to dump the coin isn't gonna help it any. If we all donated to a faucet, pool, or just started a huge giveaway, that might help.
|
|
|
|
Just sent 1.5 billion scoin over to cryptorush and it doesn't look like it made it. Is this coin forked or what? The transaction is sitting unconfirmed in the client.
is it still unconfirmed now? cryptorush.in is on the same latest version and we have no prior issue. it would be great to post your transaction address using http://altexplorer.net/chain/sCoinalmost everyone is on the correct fork. if yours is still unconfirmed and you have been solo-mined, and then that mean you are on the wrong fork. i will do another giveaways soon. please vote for it to be on cryptsy exchange https://cryptsy.freshdesk.com/support/discussions/topics/74433by the way, cryptorush.in also allow SCO/doges trading. blaz092 gave the suggestion of also do another giveaway here http://thisweekscoin.com/forum/index.phpwill keep you guys update Don't think it is cryptorush unless they are giving me an invalid deposit address. See for yourself. Status: 0/unconfirmed Date: 1/29/2014 20:44 To: SNyYbUCzp6XFdRqszprLwRwURXzrZuyzXz Debit: -1559999999.00 SCO Transaction fee: -0.027 SCO Net amount: -1559999999.027 SCO Transaction ID: 5d51c4744bf01c0ecc724b46d8aa18612359faf4213638766cbb516d25de9af5 |
|
|
|
|
blocks in the client matched up with blocks on the pool, figured i was good to go. oh well, so long shit coin!
|
|
|
|
|
Just sent 1.5 billion scoin over to cryptorush and it doesn't look like it made it. Is this coin forked or what? The transaction is sitting unconfirmed in the client.
|
|
|
|
|
This is the same dev of OFF and UNO if I am not mistaken, wouldn't expect him to just abandon it. Seems like a shoe-in for the sci-fi exchange. I am willing to donate to a faucet or pool as well if it'll kickstart things.
|
|
|
|
no. Total supply ( currently) 4,916,813,823 5 billion USD would need to be invested in this before it got to even $1, never mind $5. It may well go up  - but its NEVER going to reach 1 USD, let alone 5. FR Well my uncle works at the bitcoin factory and he told me they are gonna stop making bitcoins and make kitten instead. |
|
|
|
Come on ya cheapskates, we all want a GUI, we get an announcement that bounty is being raised to fund one, and one dude donates 0.1 BTC. Now I understand a lot of small investors may not have much to give, but I know we got a handful of whales among all these burnt BTC who are cheaping out. Typical, crypto-community always wants something for nothing and all devs to work for free. Sent over another donation, I am now approx. a 0.45% stakeholder in XCP and a 9.5% stakeholder in the dev fund |
|
|
|
|
Who cares? Coinmarket.io has gone down a few times since it is still in beta stage, but it is still faster, better, and far more professionally built than coinedup. It is getting decent volume and done nothing but rise. Spreading a coin to multiple exchanges is great and all but coinedup is a step down in my book.
|
|
|
|
I don't mind BTC sent to the address as counting for XCP, but here are some potentially better (and fairer) ideas:
1. Allow generation of XCP after the burn period through "donations" to the donate address that decays on a linear scale (the easiest idea to implement technically),
2. Institute a vote (through some proof of stake mechanism) to "pay" a 1-2% "bounty" of XCP to the devs (through inflation - no actual XCP will be deducted). Votes would be yea/nay/abstain; stakeholders who don't vote automatically abstain (no quorum required). This could be repeated in the future (again, shareholder votes required). (this is the fairest idea, IMO)
a. Optionally, addresses that have sent to the donation address (it's all in the blockchain) could be allocated a "piece" of this bounty. Even more proof of stake (yay). No idea how to work this out though.
3. Allow a new asset to be generated through donations (e.g. DON -- note that this is a 3 letter asset. Hence, "special"). Stakeholders of this asset can vote on where to allocate future bounties. (This is the most DAC idea)
It's a matter of aligning shareholder interests with developer interests. I believe people are naturally good ... but respond to incentives.
I would say options 1 and 2 are a non-starter simply because it breaks a very crucial part of the contact that was sealed as soon as the first BTC was burnt, and that is that no more XCP will be created after the burn period. Option 3 is ok, but I wonder just how much will be able to be raised through it. |
|
|
|
I have a proposal.
We remove the counterparty burn address and replace it with the dev donation address.
We treat all donations to the dev address as burnt funds.
If we get a consensus could we not do this?
Which pretty much defeats the whole concept of proof of burn? Its not gonna happen.. The proof of burn concept was to remove the burden of trust. The devs have already demonstrated a working product. We have demonstrated our support for this system by burning almost 1,600 BTC. At this point there is less than 10 days to claim stake, what little is left should be put toward bounties, not destroyed.It will only help the project succeed. If we can put this to a vote, I think we would be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks that it would be better to burn the BTC than to put it toward community bounties and dev support. Even though I like your argumentation, I think it destroys the reliability of the first real proof of burn project. But maybe the developers can tell their point of view Let's not pretend that proof of burn is something that should be glorified. We have already wasted 1.5 million dollars, yet the devs have received a little over 3 btc ($2,400). You want this to succeed? Lets pay their bills for a few months so they can devote their time to this. Nice try PhantomPhreak, quite a clever little scam you concocted. Burn the first 3 weeks worth of BTC to gain our trust, then change the rules last minute so you can rob us blind and disappear. Brilliant scheme but you aren't getting away with it on my watch! Now I am joking, and as an approx. 0.5% stakeholder in XCP the idea to stop burning BTC to send to the dev fund instead gets my vote, but I am just illustrating that changing the rules this late in the game does come with a price. The crypto community is a paranoid and fickle bunch, and for all the negatives that come with proof of burn, at least XCP was primed to be the first IPO with a fair, balanced distribution model that didn't waver until the end. Proceeding as we are doing now will require no asterisks to be put in the history books on the subject of XCP's birth. There are sure to be those that will try to stir up some FUD about a rule change now unfortunately. Is this even possible though? Can the devs simply change the protocol to issue XCP from a different address? I too would like to hear from the devs on this because if it is possible, we need to somehow take an emergency vote on this one and get the change made ASAP because with only 10ish days left in the burn period, every BTC burnt is BTC that could be funding development. |
|
|
|
|
Oh yes, and just wanted to add nice work on the exchange so far. Interface is clean, orders execute quickly, keep up this level of quality and you will grow immensely. The alt-scene is in desperate need of quality, reliable exchanges.
|
|
|
|
|
ONC with all 18 decimal places and FOX, and I have a love/hate relationship with GRC but it's time is due for a real exchange
|
|
|
|
I hate to say this after the fact, but proof of burn is a really, really, really stupid, inefficient and unproductive concept.
There are much better ways to handle proof of stake.
That money could have fed a whole village in africa for a year.
I would much rather the devs got that 1,400 BTC than it just being destroyed pointlessly.
Of course, I've said this after the fact.
Yeah, it was a worthy experiment. I can't imagine anyone else creating a proof of burn coin anytime soon, but thats not to say XCP can't be great, even if it's birth turns out to be an experiment that is never repeated. Ironically, considering the atmosphere of the alt-scene at the time this was launched (ie. new IPO scams every day), XCP would probably have received a tiny fraction of the investment that it ended up getting. So, in the end, proof of burn was necessary to get XCP to where it is at today. So, silly to wonder what could have been accomplished with that 1400 BTC if it hadn't been burned, because if it hadn't been burned there wouldn't be anything close to 1400 BTC invested here. |
|
|
|
|
Onecoin, with all 18 decimal places, do it
|
|
|
|
|
630k for sale, taking offers
|
|
|
|
Are people still able to run the client now? Someone has issued a buy order for a non-existent asset (asset name "CREDIT") and it's crashing my client. I've hacked out a fix, but I see at least one other person is still making orders. Does the client still run on some other OS, like Windows? I see that at least blockscan.com is stuck at the same place I was, prior to the buy order for a non-existing asset.
By the way (and if I'm understanding the problem correctly), if you created the buy order for "CREDIT" without first creating the asset, would you please cancel your order? Thanks -- It's blocking trade for the rest of us.
I assume the devs will push a hotfix soon, although it does worry me a little bit that activity on the counterpartyd repo (including the dev branch) seems to have tailed off -- and right when I was starting work on a GUI!. Hope the large influx of capital hasn't diluted their shares to the point where they're losing interest. This is a extremely promising project.
PS: All of you who are gleefully creating non-backed assets such as Dogecoin should just save yourself the time and read through the old Ripple forum threads -- it's all been done before and people will soon get bored and only people trading real, trusted assets will remain. By the way, everyone who was calling for Ripple on the Bitcoin blockchain should jump on this opportunity, because this project is all the innovative features of Ripple on the BTC blockchain, plus significant additional features, all with a fair distribution. What more could you ask for?
Hoping the devs are just staying low key for now until the burn period ends, awesome that the initial distribution of XCP is so fair, but I think even they realize it got a bit bigger than they imagined! Best way to support the devs is make a donation so they can spend more time on this project, it may be a labor of love but they gotta eat too. Just sent over a small donation so I could see that wallet finally crack 3 BTC. It's kinda a catch-22, more donations and community support will roll in as soon as there is at least a basic GUI, I imagine the average investor is waiting for that before they touch their XCP. But development can only progress so fast and far as I imagine the devs can't devote their whole lives to XCP as you can only live off of 3 BTC for so long. Here's to hoping the devs are basement dwelling neckbeards who are tirelessly working 24/7 and gonna blow our minds with something amazing as soon as the burn period ends! |
|
|
|
Noticing a tick up in <1 BTC burns (the stock analogy would be odd-lot trades) the past few days. Increasing public awareness of the XCP idea?
Nice observation! Though unfortunately the donations are still near 0: https://blockchain.info/address/19QX5WBkkaUXAZ4HZrNtPtjPsakGG2co8HLet's hope the community will at least start donating XCP's, otherwise everyone may end up sitting on a pile of useless bits and bytes. What is this address? I was going to make a BTC donation to 12J1YFvsWHDCU5HNAWNLNy1Q9nZo8Q4Xgs which I thought was the official donation address. The donations are a bit paltry at the moment, would like to show my support, but I imagine as soon as a reliable windows installer and GUI are developed the XCP donations will start pouring in. Now I'm no tech idiot, but as soon as I see the phrases "compile from source" and "command-line interface", I say "nope" and turn right around. I imagine it is the same for many who burnt XCP. Don't get me wrong, not telling PhantomPhreak and xnova to work faster, they have made impressive progress already. Just saying if the development team is discouraged by the lack of community support by way of funding, I imagine that will change quickly as soon as the project gets that far. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
