Look at the long-term trend for TEK (180 days).

It's steadily, incontrovertibly declining. 

Unless demand for TEK outpaces the supply for TEK, it too will eventually peg at 1 sat.

Supply and demand is really not "my opinion".

Chances are that Silkcoin's value has been declining as investors sell in anticipation of it becoming a highly-inflationary currency.

Anyways, I raised a serious concern and was met with derisive responses that don't address the issue instead of a serious discourse. 
I don't think this is the community for me.

Good luck, everyone.

Is there a real plan in place to ensure that demand out-paces 111%?

Soap box time:

I think this is a necessary conversation to have if this coin is to survive.
Something needs to change or all the dev team/community's efforts will have been in vain.

This coin currently has one fatal (fixable) flaw:

Its annual inflation rate is 111%.
Remember that our staking rewards are inflation for this currency.
Staking rewards are necessary to carry the network, but they must be kept at a level that does not render the currency impractical via rapid price decline.

Because of the 111% annual inflation, the value will continue to decline over time.

Can you imagine if the Federal Reserve or other central bank's policy resulted in 111% inflation?
People would literally die over that.

I'm partly responsible for this.  Maybe I should have voted a lot more times for 11%, but even 11% inflation will torpedo a currency.
Maybe I should have been more vocal about my concerns.
I know everyone wants more coins without paying for them, and staking seems like a great way to do that.
But what is the point in roughly doubling your number of coins each year if the value drops by 80+%?  You still have less value at the end of the year.

If this isn't changed, the value will eventually peg at 1 sat.

In order for a currency to be useful as a currency, it must be relatively scarce and therefore hold value.
This cannot be achieved at 111% inflation. 

Can we re-vote for staking rewards, and make it something that is a reasonable inflation rate again?
I figured I'd give it time before bringing it up, to allow the issue to become more obvious.
Have we learned our lesson yet?

/endrant

Bittrex is going to de-list Silkcoin this Friday if the week's volume does not exceed 0.2 BTC-worth.
Just throwing that out there.  Play around on Bittrex a little if ya feel like it.

Lol much DOGE pump and dump
Sorry, unrelated but I had to point it out.

I don't have a recording setup, and if I did, I can't live up to my own standards as a sound engineer.
But I can always access something.  Might cost a small amount though for recording/mastering.

As for re-branding Silkcoin for metal, that might corner us into a niche.  But it does provide that much-needed middle finger to the world that you're looking for   Hell, if there's a good re-branding plan for when/if we get to the point that we out-grow the metal-head demographic, I'd be 100% on board.

I played drums for a brutal progressive metal band for several years.  Also played a Slayer tribute show once.  We played Reign In Blood in its entirety   Brooootal.

I'll make something clear here.  I know that there isn't any fraud going on.  I'm just saying that the rest of the world isn't always open-minded.  Sometimes all it takes is one goober seeing unexpected transactions that don't lead to HIM having more money, and writing about how it looks shady in his stupid blog to cuntpunch a coin into oblivion in its early days.
This is a crowded marketplace, full of distrust (understandably so).  We need a high attention to detail in order to stand out as the best. 

That being said.  Within the framework of how staking/mining has to occur with Silkcoin, is it even possible to make these odd-looking transactions not show up in your history?  If it isn't, it isn't.  But maybe an explanation of the mechanics that lead to these odd transactions could be available to the skeptics who need need it?

Anyway, that's all just my dumbass opinion
You can take it or leave it and I won't be offended.

Peace,

Wow thanks for being attentive and noticing this and bringing it up to the group.
And thanks to the developers in advance for giving this the attention it deserves.

That is very weird and can't be right.  I'll come right out here and say that something has to change so this doesn't happen.  People assessing this coin might see this activity if it's common enough, and assume that it is some means to overstate the daily volume of the coin and affect the price, and is therefore fraudulent behavior.  We really don't need that, as one of the biggest things we need is good PR right now, after the launch of in-wallet voting.

This is the tightest group in crypto, and we all seem to be in it for the right reasons.  We can't leave little issues like this in place so they can become big issues when we come under greater attention and scrutiny.

Peace,

A friend and I have a card at our disposal.  It is an MSI R4870.  We aren't technical people at all with regards to mining; never dunnit before

We don't know what coin it would be best-suited to mine, and we don't know how to configure it.

Bitcoinasourus, is it possible for us to mail it somewhere, have you or someone else put it to work, and send some fair amount of the resulting SILK to our wallets?  We know it won't be much, and that's okay.
How many SILK would this card produce per day, on average, if configured to mine the coin it is best suited for?

Would you be interested in something like the following arrangement?:

We send you the card
You configure it to mine whatever coin is appropriate in this pool
You keep however much of the SILK it produces that you think is fair for yourself and send the rest to us
We trust that you have reasonable/fair judgment as far as how much you keep to offset energy/time. 

Thanks.  We want to help support this but only have one card and no idea how to use it
Peace,

I'm curious about the big picture of how this mining pool works.  Is it mining other coins and then converting the reward from the other coins into SILK and sending them to your wallet?

If so, that's friggin' cool!

It creates some consistent commerce/buy orders, adding some amount of adoption to the economy.
Well done!

Pandionrain I think I love you.

Trade volumes and prices have dropped quite a bit on all exchanges.  I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice this.

Is there a solid plan in place to spread the word when the new client with in-wallet voting is released?
I think at that point in time, a good PR campaign is what is needed.

Ideas?

I just did a giveaway on Poloniex.  Just said that I've got 500 SILK to the next 5 people who post an address in the next 5 minutes.

People loved it, of course. 

I figure it's only costing me a buck or so a person, and one in every so many of them will look us up and cross over to the silky side.  Will probably repeat another day.  Keepin' crypto fun

I have put some thought into this, and figure that a good goal to set is to support the SilkConomy reaching a $6B market capitalization within 10 years.

This would mean a price of somewhere around $100 per coin, conservatively.
This goal is achievable.

After the software is in a more stable form (meaning doesn't require users to update it more than once every several months or so, and updates are quicker/easier to do), perhaps we should have a discussion breaking down what steps must be taken to achieve this goal.  Then individual users can decide, based on their interests and backgrounds, which step(s) they can support to help achieve this goal, and how.

But we'll talk more about it in the near future.  I've already done a lot of thinking about this to get the conversation started.  But I don't want to detract from more important developments right now.

I've been emailing with Arteleis towards hopefully fixing my corrupted wallet.dat file.
I've tried everything that's been suggested, and believe the fault has been isolated to my wallet.dat.  Some process that writes to it has probably corrupted it.  The devs will examine my wallet and debug window and hopefully will be able to address whatever the cause of the issue was in the next qt update.

With any luck at all, this problem will be fixed sometime soon.

On an unrelated note, make sure you check out this great article on coindesk regarding altcoins like Silkcoin:
http://www.coindesk.com/need-altcoins-can-get/?utm_source=CoinDesk+subscribers&utm_campaign=7d9d8daacf-EMAIL_RSS_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_74abb9e6ab-7d9d8daacf-78909885

We are doing a lot of things right.  As the software becomes more stable, etc., our focus will have to shift into PR for us to be successful.  More to discuss on that later, when the time comes.

The camel marches on!!!

Now I removed my wallet.dat so the q-t software would be forced to generate a new, clean one. 

Then I sent 1 SILK to the new wallet from my Bittrex account.
Then I sent what was left of this (minus transaction fees) back to my Bittrex account.
It worked fine.

The problem is in my wallet.dat file.

I may have found some crash events in my debug window.
Would those data be helpful?

Last night/this morning I installed Silkcoin wallet 1.1.0.16 on a different computer, which has never had a wallet on it before.
I had the exact same issue.  The wallet crashes when I send SILK.  It's not due to a problem with the computer then.
 

Yes, I have now.
I just attempted to send SILK using 1.1.0.16 and had the wallet crash in the exact same manner that it has been crashing again.

I also attempted to generate a new address in the Send/Receive tab and had the same crash.

Next I'll try it on a different computer that has 32-bit Windows 7 instead of 64.  Hopefully this is the last time I have to download the blockchain 

A little bit more data on my bug.  When I go the the send/receive tab, click on receive, and try to generate a new address. . . I get the exact same crash as I get when I try to send coin.

Why would this be happening?