Didn't work.

I hope you are wrong about this.

This might be to far outside the box yet, but I hope we will be able to vote on really important stuff in the future. It's unlikely that all fundermental constants in YAC (n-increase,POS reward,blocks/hr,...) will perfectly fit forever and won't need adjustments ever again. I'm not even advicing to change anything at all, but soly the ability to vote such things could be very beneficial in the future.

As you might have noticed I want to built up a voting system based on my giveaway thread. All suitable adresses will be collected there and with the help of CC and a simple script votes could be transparent and fair*. If I could get enough (important) people of the YAC community to get there and sign that message this would help enourmously.

Please get your free YACs by signing a message for me:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=300152.0


*)I'm against weighting every vote equal, but that's someting the community would have to decide later on. As long as we have no upcoming votes (the logo is already decided, live with it) noone has incentives to push for a system that vavours a specivic result.

You really want to make somthing trivial as a logo decision in a do it my way or without me?! Take a few days off and think again.

I agree with most of your argument on the logo debate and liked your imput, but if you can't accept the community to make a different decision you have a problem (not the community). I never saw the logo as viral to YAC's survival, but having a good commuity that can discuss, vote, stick to the results and move on is. That's far more important than having a good logo or any decision itself.

The choosen logo isn't perfect, but it isn't soo terrible either. I also would like to have the other choosen, but noone is so important to rule over the opinion of the majority. Live with it is better that live without it, but that's your call.

Good luck.

Upps, I just saw that too late.

I think the next n-change will be really interresting. It would surprice me if anything changes much, but if it doesn't change after this it probably won't change in the future either.

I can understand your frustration with the new logo, but there will be always someone frustrated with a decision made. Arguing about the method the vote was conducted is fine, but results must be out of debate or we won't be able to make decisions at all.
You wouldn't accept a new vote when your logo would have won, but the majority that botherd to vote sould have to accept it? What if you won't win the next vote, how often should we have to vote on this? Untill you win?

For the code stuff the public opinion is that Joe should handle it, on the logo it clearly isn't than you should! It was him btw who decided that we vote on the logo. You don't accept Joe`s decision to vote and the decision of everyone voted for, it seems the only thing you accept is what you want yourself. Grow up.


+1


I hope a lot of people see now why my previous points on finding a good way to vote are important. Only transparent votingresults can end a discusion like this and let us move on. Voting on bitcointalk is a very bad way to vote, so please support my efforts to get to a better voting mechanism:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=300152.0

All you have to do is sign a message and you even get some free coins for your efforts. The transactions will be conservated into the blockchain and once we have a list of adresses/names we can find a good way to make votes count. I'd go for send a coin to a votingadress and a script that filters out double votes, but that hasen't be decidet yet. It could be 1vote/acc or valuing people different,etc ... It doesn't matter unless it's previously agreed on and results are final.

Maby we even revote on the damm logo with this, but only if we get enough people to register their adress.

I can understand your frustration with the new logo, but there will be always someone frustrated with a decision made. Arguing about the method the vote was conducted is fine, but results must be out of debate or we won't be able to make decisions at all.
You wouldn't accept a new vote when your logo would have won, but the majority that botherd to vote sould have to accept it? What if you won't win the next vote, how often should we have to vote on this? Untill you win?

For the code stuff the public opinion is that Joe should handle it, on the logo it clearly isn't than you should! It was him btw who decided that we vote on the logo. You don't accept Joe`s decision to vote and the decision of everyone voted for, it seems the only thing you accept is what you want yourself. Grow up.





I hope a lot of people see now why my previous points on finding a good way to vote are important. Only transparent votingresults can end a discusion like this and let us move on. Voting on bitcointalk is a very bad way to vote, so please support my efforts to get to a better voting mechanism:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=300152.0

All you have to do is sign a message and you even get some free coins for your efforts. The transactions will be conservated into the blockchain and once we have a list of adresses/names we can find a good way to make votes count. I'd go for send a coin to a votingadress and a script that filters out double votes, but that hasen't be decidet yet. It could be 1vote/acc or valuing people different,etc ... It doesn't matter unless it's previously agreed on and results are final.

Maby we even revote on the damm logo again, but only if we get enough people to register their adress.

At first it was entertaining, but now it's just anoying.

Everyone was heard and could post ideas, we decided that we will vote here on the logo and we voted. No further reasoning needed.

Great. Any chance the DB update will make it aswell?

Sounds interresting.

As far as I understand is a PoS block generated for every imput, so those 10 adresses behave like 1000 with just one input each. The easiest would be to forward each adress to a new one via CC, but otherwise we could see if there is a bug somewhere. Has anyone experience with a single adress with a lot of eightible inputs for PoS?

Or prices just had been too optimistic ...

When you look at http://www.yacoinstats.tk/coin-supply.html you see that new coin supply had been nearly constant over the last 3-4 month. When you estimate Yacoins marketcap for the future you have to remember that there will be far more coins by then.

At first the market was extremly over optimistic on YAC. By the time prices were at 0.4mBTC (2013-05-31) the MC wasn't looking too big for a crypto with such great features, but it would have to grow to 320kUSD* in the next 3 month just to keep that price. In other words it would have needed people to spend ~50kUSD/mo on YAC (without anyone selling their old coins.)

It seems to me that this was doomed to happen without an extreme demand for YAC. Once people noticed that YAC didn't skyrocket as expected they stoped buying. With decreasing prices from the miners others started to sell and we ended up at the current MC.

This behavour makes YAC the ideal currency once the coin growth/mc decrease period is over, but it's impossible to predict when that happens. I belive now is a good time to accumulate some Yac. Not at once, but like fixed USD per week.**

*BTC is a bad way to measure MC or value
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_cost_averaging

2rd transaction sent.
c2a7f7f77ac429844f1f69675ba6f0df13cf240896644af9461cffd9006a9948


EDIT: uups, misedit

Didn't work. Try again.

It seems you got the signature wrong.


No signature no coins.


The other code was the signature of the message. Open yacoin-qt, go to File/Sign message and sign the message "Gimme some YAC" with your adress. This doesn't work without yacoin-qt. the private key.


Thanks for the donation Sairon.

First transaction sent.
http://yacexplorer.tk/tx/df2cc12c14e71c9ad8ea75abfb727ad32e81b9f4cc03205e77f898366cfffcd2

I totally agree.
Although I also don't like the new logo so much it has been decided in a fair way. It has to be binding or we couldn't decide anything. The logo discusion isn't helping any more and won't change the official logo to your alternative. It just pisses people off when some couldn't acept any other opinion than their own and continue to bitch about the damm logo.

Get over it (and use the official).

I'm no programmer, but I hope this helps.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=300152.0

All you need to do is sign the message "Gimme some YAC" and post your adress + signature to get some YAC. If enough people post there we could use the this method for the next vote aswell. The registered adresses would be in that thread (and in the blockchain) so we could limit it to 1vote/account.

This is a giveaway thread.

If you want some YAC (currently 15Yac 5YAC each) sign the message "Gimme some YAC" (without "") by one of your YAC-adresses and post it here a form like:


I think it's obvious that noone should post more than once, but now I said it. I'll check every adress so please don't waste my time. If you post a rubbish sig you'll have to post the coresponding message aswell or you won't get any coins. Don't edit the sig.


If you want to support this idea, donate to:

Y9qYZ2zszLzCeJnhqQcMqXFfY1UbvaScCp

Special thanks to the following donators:
aso118 (500YAC)

I hope we could use the adresses here for voting purposes in the future so keep your adress safe.

I don't think so.

Cryptsy is the place where you could buy most if not every crypto with a marketcap bigger than imagination. It's their niche to trade a lot of alternative coins and helps the altcoin community. Their prices f.e. are used to calculate the marketcaps. Removing a coin wouldn't benefit many noticable but'd upset a lot of people.

Great work. I really like it.

I like the distribution, but there are still far too much free areas. Has anyone heard about someone doing this on bitcoin?

Plagiarism is the most honest form of appreciation.

It is already aviable, but there will be some code checking bevor it will be the "official" version. I belive it's good to go, but that's your call. I'd wait for the new official version if you got a lot of kYACs otherwise go for it.

https://github.com/saironiq/yacoin-cc.git
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=276948.0

No, I don't agree with that.

PoS are far less common than PoW so they should be weighted far more.
I'd say the safest would be to require a PoW block after each PoS in order to overrule more than 3 PoW blocks. Otherwise the PoS wouldn't make it significantly harder to 51% than PoW.

I'm not thinking about the protocoll to change it's priorities, I mean the miners. If the honest miners don't agree with a non-legit fork they stay on the shorter, but legit one. A warning message for the clients would prevent them from getting double spent. The clients have all the PoS so they could effectively force the remaining miners to accept the new method.