Man all the post count bumping gibberish posts are getting out of hand...

Vampirus.  How about CAPP discussions stay in the CAPP thread. 

I think the pollution of CAPP discussions into the CAP thread has been confusing to a number of people who are not fully aware and understanding that CAPP is completely separate from CAP and is not a replacement.

Thanks.

The weird-ass CAPP alternative is exactly that....a weird-ass alt of an alt for no reason.  The sexy-ass CAP will remain.

Big thanks to Tranz and ReydeApio who are doing a lot of work to get CAPs back on track. 

Interesting that while the funny business happened Vampirus went from 5th on the richlist to 23rd.  Sent his CAPs somewhere for something...

Tranz has already stated that updates to HBN will come first then come to CAP.  We do not need a hostile takeover.

I vote No to any of the proposed changes.

The core functionality of CAPs is fine as it is.  The current 200% max; variable with difficulty along with the maximum stake reward/block functions just fine.

The only complaints against Bottlecaps with any type of regularity are that the wallet uses too much resources.  Any development should focus on this type of improvement not on changing the fundamentals.

Also, even though the current split/combine thresholds were set by Tranz at the low value levels for a valid reason no one typically leaves there blocks at these sizes and consequently spend a lot of time in coin control managing their block sizes (ie most people manually make their blocks in the 5000-6000 range).  I think for user 'quality of life' having these values be able to be set at whatever a user wants easily would be a nice change.  I changed these for myself in the source code and as a result just leave my wallet running 24/7/365 never having to even bother with the hassle/waste of time of managing blocks in coin control...it's great.

If BTC was denied an ETF what chance does ETC have at this point in time?  I don't see any logic there...but that said very little with what happens in crypto involves logic...

I think this is great move that supports early buyer/hodlers who purchased back when HUC was much more expensive.  Thanks.

How many hixtpoints does that guy have?

Simple math reveals the answer you seek. 

If for i = 1 to n (where n = the number of times Vlad has posted sexy pictures of himself) then solving for the local minimum of the integrated 2nd order gamow-spoetnik differential equation gives the result 775 which on any alphanumeric telephone touchpad translates to QRK.  SO the obvious answer is you should buy Quark.   

Datacoin did that back in 2013....

Please don't buy a single Monero today.

I think it should be a mix of TRUE TWINS of Crypto...those being Nuggets and Shitcoin...so how about it becomes ShitNuggets.

Anything is possible in this day and age...just look at DASH, the ultimate scam coin, rising like a bat out of hell.

Seeing IXC and QRK make a come back would be rad, swell and otherwise gnarly.

Spoetnik.  Some treasures lay lost some are found.  Oh the humanixty.

you take the good you take the bad you take them both and there you have...

Yes that is a mechanism to both control inflation but more importantly its function is to increase network security.  Without a max reward/stake many people would just keep all their CAPs in a single large block to make life simple (ie open wallet once every 15days and get one stake, recombine into one block, close wallet).  By having max/stake people have to have many blocks so they do not go past the max stake.  Having many blocks competing for stake gives better security by higher difficulty (better security) and additional inflation control by CAPs method of decreasing reward % as difficulty rises.  With higher difficulty and smaller blocks it takes longer to get a stake so you keep your wallet open longer which also helps with peers etc. 

A pretty well designed system that works pretty well. 

It's like a monument to remember a better time.