As of right now AP is staying on board, but I will be helping out with development and as a community liaison. 

I have just taken over some of the development roles within the last 48 hours.  I am going to do more to keep the community informed and am going to be working with the community as much as I can.  I am not going to do information solely via skype as I do not like skype.  I will be updating here, the current official Mazacoin forum at http://cryptominers.freeforums.org/index.php and will be in the IRC channel #Mazacoin on freenode.  There is a lot of work to do to regain trust,  Payu has still been working with the Lakota on the ground and from what I've heard from him it sounds positive.  And like I've told Payu, the Lakota need to look at what Mazacoin can do for them locally and not worry about the exchange price.  With the use of the coin on the reservation and when merchants can start accepting the coin the market prices will follow and the value of Maza will increase.


Like I said, I'm not sure what volume they are trading at that price and it may be sub 100 MZC, but it at least shows that there is some interest on the reserve and if we can get there merchants accepting it things will be better.  The launch of this coin was not a Scam, it did have the backing of some of the Lakota tribe, unfortunately there are a lot of different dynamics with tribal government that even I don't understand, and the part of the Tribal government that works with the US Government and gets grants from the US is the ones that have come out against Mazacoin (again, this is coming from what I have heard via Payu and what he has stated in the IRC channel and other places in the past).  If Mazacoin was launched as a scam then Payu would have walked away from the project after it reached 10k Satoshi and we never would have heard from him again.

Me, I'm not focusing on the Market price of Mazacoin, I want the coin to be working well for transactions so that merchants can accept the coin and have a POS type system and android wallet for transactions, and we are working towards that end.  We also will have some more news about code development coming out later, and I'll be sure to keep you all informed.

I did hear that some of the Lakota are trading MZC for $.01 on the reserve, I'm not sure in what quantities, but if it's happening even in minute quantities it's a step in the right direction.  Payu is also busy working on getting merchants to accept the coin on the reservation as well. 

I have also taken over some of the Dev roles and will be working on the coin as needed and helping with trying to promote the coin.


I know you had talked about merge mining before and I agree it could be a step in the right direction, getting consistent hashrate will give us consistent block times as well.  While I also have my reservations about merge mining they are mainly selfish ones since I am a pool operator and would probably lose out if/when merge mining is implemented, but that won't stop me from doing what's best for the coin provided we can all (AP and Payu as well) agree that is the way it needs to go.  Also, if you would happen to know what all needs to be done to implement merge mining any help would be appreciated.  I've looked at the code for it a little but haven't looked at it long enough to determine what needs to be done if we were to implement it.

I still think you are a bit confused, because if AP is "kicked" that basically just means that Payu left and you guys forked the coin as a community and not the official Mazacoin since AP holds the github and domain. 

Good point.  But I'm still of the opinion that forking the coin for any economic changes won't help the coin if it's primary purpose of serving as a currency for the Lakota and other Native tribes is not met.  People already aren't buying Maza, and a fork is just going to turn them off more.

Let's take up the Zetacoin stance.  Buy and hold, buy and hold, build, buy and hold.

We don't need to be looking and forking the coin for block reward.  Maybe a fork for diff adjustments or to add merge mining to the coin only.  But the real thing that could help the coin, and the best route would be getting the Lakota to accept the coin and start using it in day to day transactions as well as getting other tribes on board.  As this is the goal of Mazacoin to begin with, meeting that goal will bring with it price adjustments.  Don't change the block chain just to satisfy miners and bagholders, as that will just lead to a dump once the price gets to what they want it at and it won't help the long term viability of the coin.  As a small pool operator myself I don't like the idea of merge mining just because it takes the small pools out of the network and will leave it in the hands of the current big merge mining pools that would possibly add Mazacoin.  It might be good for the blockchain with the hashrate they provide but it puts the chain in the hands of those pools, current Maza pools wouldn't be able to compete with those even if we implemented merge mining on the pools.  So that is the only downside from my standpoint.

http://drk.CryptoADHD.com

is up on the correct fork and has 0% fees, come help us find some blocks.

I just put a Mazacoin block explorer up with my Embargocoin explorer at http://explorer.embargocoin.com:2750/chain/Mazacoin the addresses aren't starting with the right letter when you look at it, but it's still searchable by MZC addresses and shows the current MZC blockchain.

Current block being 73431 with 5k per block means 367,155,000 in existence at this moment.

So a group of users are forking away from mazacoin proper?  I don't know how that will work, and I would expect Payu to announce any new dev team not associated with AP, not some random "bagholder" who has complained in the past about losing money on Maza and is only looking to get the price up so he can dump his bag and get his BTC back.

And reply has been sent.  Hopefully it answers your issue satisfactorily.

If you can send me your id at the pool or use the contact form at the pool if you prefer I will look into it for you.

The irishcoin that has irishcoin.org and launched 5/17 is in thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=612983.0

Looking at the block explorer blocks are still flying by and are coming 1 every few seconds rather than the 10 minute target, diff will keep rising, and the more hashpower on the chain the higher it will go, then when people drop off it will be stuck, unless it can maintain a consistent hashrate at that point.

I have to say that new look is pretty nice looking.

Guess you haven't checked the thread today?  It's marked abandoned now.

Haha, you are right, my bad, I'm still waking up and read the target time wrong and mathed incorrectly somehow.  I was thinking for a minute they did make a small change from bitcoin in the time. 

Yeah, those first 2016 blocks could fly by, and then as everyone pulls off the chain you'll never pop 2017 for days.  No way for a coin with 5 minute block time and diff retargetting at 2016 blocks to work, hell even a 30 second block time with 2016 blocks to retarget would kill a coin now.  The original Bitcoin is unique in that it was the first and holds the majority of the hashrate and can maintain a stable hashrate.  New altcoins cannot maintain stable hashrates and will fail with the same specifications of Bitcoin unless there is something truly unique to the coin.  Look at the launch of Sovereign to see what happened with 8 minute block times and longer block retargets, I hate that they decided to completely pull the plug though.  While we have 20 minute times with Embargocoin our diff adjusts every 2 blocks and it's a feature of Embargo as the idea is to have longer block times that you have to break through an Embargo.  But for an actual new launch without a designed quirk it's not good.

If it's just a SHA-256 multipool then it will just harness ASIC power that wouldn't be hashing on the QBC blockchain anyways so would be a great idea, once Scrypt ASICs are larger and the majority of hash on Scrypt coins it would make sense to add Scrypt to the multipool, I would be hesitant to add scrypt to a multipool too soon as it could take away miners from the QBC blockchain.