Basically we have established that Cryptcoin has both known, respected developers and a plan for the future.  You can take issue with the lack of clarity and transparency, and that is your right, but it is also the devs' right to proceed how they see fit.  Even if the plan isn't crystal clear, the sheer fact that one exists, and that the coin has competent devs at all, puts Cryptcoin ahead of 97% of the altcoins out there. Personally I think it's legit and has a lot of real promise, but that's a separate matter.

Although I appreciate the civil tone of the ongoing exchange with Mindfox, I'm not sure I understand why, pbremen01, you still care enough to keep it going.  If you don't like where the coin is going, by all means invest elsewhere.  I just don't understand how one can be so "proactively skeptical" as to keep posting about one's skepticism.  It has the effect of making your posts appear as FUD, even though some of the points are reasonable.

Good luck to all, and thanks, devs, for getting us this far.

Although I do think that the logo is a bit on the Jony Ive side, I also agree that it's serviceable and not the priority at this point.  When I brought it up earlier I was only wondering about the leaning-backwards issue, and wasn't meaning to open up the whole can of worms.  If the Dev wants to use psionin's more visually-balanced version, great, but if not I'll still be supporting SMC with my modest hashrate regardless....

EXE: just over a month old; similar to VTC but with some significant tweaks (faster block time, more aggressive N-factor); active dev and growing community; Android wallets; solid website and marketing efforts; currently "recovering" after recently being listed on a whole bunch of new exchanges, so the price is a little depressed; realistically positioned as the #2 scrypt-N coin after VTC, which is a pretty good place to be once scrypt ASICs dominate; with luck and some hard work, maybe a chance to be better than #2, which makes it a worthwhile gamble given the current difficulty.

There's also a different vibe around EXE, I find.  It's been building slowly, the community has been growing nicely and is helpful and active, and so far there hasn't been any pump and dump hysteria and FUD.  Pretty calm and rational.  Sort of the Toyota Camry of coins, and I mean that as a compliment.

I'm sure others can give you a more technical rundown

Ha, sorry, I wasn't expecting to set off such a flurry of activity.  I see what you mean about rotating vs. trimming.  Honestly, the comment was more just about getting the logo to look more balanced, and there are probably several ways one could go about doing so.  The tweaked version does look more "stable"--thanks for humouring me 

Since the coin is being rebooted and all...is there any chance we could rotate the logo about 5 degrees clockwise?  Because the "S" isn't symmetrical (i.e. the top is smaller than the bottom), the 45-degree diagonal slash in the logo cuts the top and bottom in slightly different places.  The result is that the S looks like it's leaning backwards every so slightly.  Once you see it you can't un-see it, and it gives a subliminal sense that Smartcoin is slightly off-kilter and backwards-leaning, which isn't a positive vibe for a coin (though, given recent history, I guess it's kind of appropriate...).

Sorry for the OCD

No, it's not like solo mining, so blocks aren't as hard to find as if you were mining solo.  That said, p2p mining does become less efficient for low-hashrate miners as the network hashrate increases.  With ~500 KH/s I think you'd be OK, but it would depend on your ability to cut down on rejects, which are higher in p2p mining.  I mined p2p with < 500 KH/s for a long time in the early days with very good success but have been using a pool recently.  The topic was discussed extensively in the mid/late 20s and early 30s of this thread.

All else being equal, p2p mining is more profitable since 1) the fees are much lower, and 2) there are opportunities for hidden rewards.  P2p is also better at maintaining network decentralization for the coin.  But in practice the benefits depend on your hashrate relative the network, your reject rate (which in a sense is a "fee"), and your latency to your chosen node; i.e. make sure to choose the shortest latency.  If you can make all these factors come together, it's worth it--and fun.  If not, it's not

Re: which pool to choose if you go that route, there is no intrinsic difference in profitability between large and small pools.  In a small pool you'll solve fewer blocks but get more for each one; in a larger pool the inverse will be true.  Over time, assuming equal fees, your profits will be the same.  If you frequently switch between coins, though, you'd want a larger pool, and (in a perfect world) one that pays out according to a PROP system, rather than PPLNS, so that your short-term rewards are maximized.  Between Dedicated and Poolz, I would go with Poolz since their fees are lower and their hashrate is nearly as large, or else execoin.net since it directly helps the coin.

@Devs: the new website looks great--nice work, guys.  I really like the steady growth the EXE "brand" has been showing thus far.  However, there are still a few typos and grammatical errors that take away from the website's professionalism.  I'm a professional editor with a PhD, and would be happy to help streamline the text a little if you think that would be useful.  I'd like to contribute to the community somehow, especially since I have a small number of EXE stashed away myself  .  PM me if you're interested.

Yeah...in hash.so you can see that everyone's miners are hashing away but never solving anything...the shares just keep piling up, but there are never any returns.  I think the announcement was so quiet, and the coin was already so far from the spotlight, that almost none of the pools picked up on the change.

It is a bit weird.  You'd think if you were trying to reboot the coin, you'd at least want your pools to know about it....

Anyway, while we wait for things to get sorted out, does anyone know if the talk of PoS ever amounted to anything?  Dev, was it implemented, or are you still thinking of doing so at some point?

Just an observation: with a halving to 32, then 16, etc., the original SMC schedule is preserved, albeit on a different schedule than originally intended.  Most people would understand the need to combat inflation, but overall the change wouldn't seem overly heavy-handed or manipulative.

An immediate shift to 16 or lower is obviously more drastic, and it also implies a major departure from the original plan--not just tinkering and improvement, but a total and somewhat arbitrary shift.  Now consider the potential of introducing PoS sometime in the future: another major departure.

My point is that this seems great for those of us with existing SMC holdings, but consider from the perspective of someone just getting into the coin.  The existing community mines millions of SMC at relatively low diff, then goes and quarters the reward, and even introduces a means of further rewarding those that already have large holdings.  It comes across almost as a premine on a larger scale.  Although a coin that started out with the proposed new specs would interest a lot of people, wouldn't a reboot as drastic as the one being proposed cause some resentment among prospective new miners, given that it would effectively create a caste system?

I'm not arguing that nothing should be done.  I'm just suggesting that, all things considered, it might make sense to accelerate the timescale but not alter other fundamental aspects of the coin as drastically as is being proposed.

Haha no worries, I think most people kind of figure things out as they go.  As far as I understand it, they all have to do with how work is accepted from, and given back to, the server, but I'm sorry I don't know the technical details of "how".  I suspect it forces the miner to kind of not take on any more than it can handle at a time.  I know some people like higher expiry values (up to 30 or so), so it might be worth playing with that, although 1 is the most common.  The Vertcoin forums will probably be helpful for you, too.

This was discussed earlier in the thread, but basically:
- No or lower fees (= ~1% higher payout, all else being equal).
- No need to trust the pool with your coins, or give away any personal info, if that's a concern.
- Potentially higher payouts overall because of rewards, but this depends on your reject rate and latency to the node.
- Need to keep your rejects low and find the most efficient node for you; if you do, it's profitable even with low hashrates.
- Payouts will continue for a LONG time after you stop mining.  Like, days.  Remember this when calculating the payout relative to pools.

See http://www.reddit.com/r/dogemining/comments/1uncvb/the_benefits_of_mining_using_p2pool_better

I've been mining EXE P2P for a while with a relatively measly 400 KH/s and have had good success.  If you only plan to mine for a few hours at a time then stick with a pool, since the PPLNS of P2P won't catch up with you in such a short time.  If you plan to mine for 24HRs+, then give P2P a shot, IF you can keep rejects in the 5% range--make sure to include something like:

Apologies if this has been addressed, but...is it  EE-EX-EE-coin, or EKSEH-coin, or Executable-coin, or...?  The name makes so much sense until I try to tell someone about it out loud    Not a complaint; just curious.

The same thing happens with my R9 270s, and the issue seems to be some kind of driver hiccup.  For me, the solution is to enter any arbitrary different intensity value (the point is to give things a jolt; the exact number doesn't matter), restart exeminer, then shutdown, re-enter the "proper" intensity value, and start again.  One of two things happens: either it just works after the restart, or it crashes the AMD drivers and then works perfectly once they recover.  For me the problem is worse if I specify multiple -I values with commas, vs. a single value for all cards.

Not a 6870, but on a 5870 TC 6144 -g 1 -I 18 and some minor OCing got ~190ish KH/s. 

Hey everyone, first time posting.  Devs, thanks for your work so far; let's keep it going.  I think EXE has real potential, and I really like that the community is so helpful and not taking things too fast.

Thought I'd share some settings for R9 270 and 270X. Tested in Arch Linux and Win 7:

This gets ~208 KH/s on HIS 270s at ~80C (would be cooler but my fan setup is crap atm): -I 18 -g 1 --lookup-gap 2 --thread-concurrency 12801 --gpu-engine 1000 --gpu-memclock 1450

If you're mining P2P, you'll also need --expiry 1 --scan-time 1 --queue 0.  In western Canada, this gives me ~3.5% rejects on freebtc.eu:9173.

Although I haven't tried them with EXE/nscrypt, in cgminer my HIS 270X turbos get ~485 Kh/s with I 20 gpu 1135 mem 1500 TC 15232 (i.e. almost no OC).  The newest AMD drivers dropped the hashrate by ~40 KH/s per card, and I haven't been able to get the same results in sgminer either.  Probably just haven't found the right settings for the new drivers/sgminer yet.

Would love to hear if anyone can suggest any improvements.  Also, count me as another vote for KGW ASAP.  Cheers.