Thanks, giving it a shot. It's at least chugging along now (back from the start)... hopefully it keeps on going.

Thanks. My wallet shows 5 active connections now. It also shows 31.66% done, and has been stuck like that for hours. Also shows last generated block was 7 hours ago.

I've been out of crypto for a while, so am rusty as to what should be happening there. Expect it should be moving faster than it has been however (not moving at all, apparently). Anything else I can try?

I left it running for like 5 hrs. Restarted it multiple times. It'd pick up some blocks, then just stand still... like forever.

Any other node addresses I can add?

Thanks. Starts to sync for me, but eventually conks out (pretty quickly). Not sure if it's me or blockchain issues though. Anyone else have an issue with the wallet syncing correctly?

Been away from crypto for like a year but I left some qibucks in my wallet... go to check them today and can't get the wallet to sync either. Tried the newer wallet, won't sync, conf file or not. Need help as well.

And guess I should have updated my info if I wanted bagholder payouts... just read now that they were changed to btc addresses only? I think I missed a lot of payouts.

Although it won't matter if I can't get my wallet working.

Any news on why the wallet at Polo has been down?

And has anyone received their coins for this month? I haven't, as I was using the Polo wallet for these freebie coins... obviously can't get coins into a broken wallet.

Fair enough. 500 QBK is a reasonable compromise.

But I do agree with whomever posted earlier (forget their name) that when changes like this are made in the future, some form of voting should take place.

And I wasn't referring to a pump, just to be clear. I was referring to buy support, just to keep things stable.

Bi-monthly is better than every three months, although I still think leaving things alone and simply going with a bonus if you keep your coins in your wallet would have worked better. Then decrease regular payouts slightly to fund the long term holder people.

But what done is done.

I also disagree with changing the requirement to 1K coins for any payout, as it beats me as to what benefit that serves really. It doesn't necessarily mean folks will buy up coins to reach that 1K limit. Instead, it could mean those with less than 1K would be more willing to dump.

Based on current prices, I do suggest the dev team consider starting their stability fund thing again, to get prices stable and at least to semi-respectable levels once again. Folks typically don't like change... and especially don't like change + sinking prices.

Almost forgot it was time to do this again:

Last month:


Current numbers (as of the 25th):

Posts:    1973
Activity:    308
Position:    Sr. Member
SRCC address: SVDoSeUvqTfLHSima8zRRPeKTcbyhSDMNK

So only 21 posts for me this month.

Just checked the forum today and see the new bagholder terms.

I disagree with the 3 month thing, and based on comments by a couple of others, I assume I'm not alone. I realize it may be easier for the dev team and also allow them to grow their investments faster. But it assumes that investors are rational and patient. Rationality and patience are not two words I'd normally associate with crypto investors.

3 months in crypto-time is like 3 years in real time. It's just too long ... people will become antsy and probably trade coins regardless of the 3 month timeframe if they see any major price movement going on.

If it was me, I'd go back to the one month payouts. You can provide a bonus to those who hold their coins in for 3 months at a time, which would probably achieve the same goal anyway.

I view the coin more as a mutual fund than a bank/interest type of setup myself. It'd probably be better to just call rewards 'giveaways' (think Unity did that, to get around any possible legal issues). Still... maybe it's just me, but I think a crypto should be used or at least thought of as a currency too. You don't want a situation where there is no volume at all on a coin, because everyone is keeping them tucked away in their wallets, all the time.

I do agree that bagholding isn't the best terminology either. It sounds sort of cute, and was fine when the coin was new, but it doesn't really sound professional and of course it has negative connotations.

If you are talking about a percentage of total coins need to be kept, such as if I have 1000 coins, I need to keep 25% of that in my wallet all the time, that is certainly one alternative. That is doable, although that could add to a bit of confusion when it comes to payout time (such as someone buying a ton of coins before payout, then wondering why they aren't getting rewards that month).

If you mean keeping the entirety of your coins in the wallet 100% of the time, for any reward, I'd be against it. For an extra bonus, sure, it's fine ... just shouldn't be a requirement for payout though.

There are other things they could do too, if they have the funds available. Such as contests -- perhaps those who keep the majority of their coins in their wallet for the entire month could be entered in a raffle for nice items, or something like that. That would fall under the 'bonus' idea I mentioned, where it's sort of a nice extra, but not a definite requirement.

I sort of haven't been paying attention to alts or this forum for a little while... and see there is a new thread now. Mixed feelings about that, as I tend to think it's best to just stick it out with the original thread, or go moderated from the start, than switch after several months. But what done is done.

Anyway, just wanted to comment on the idea of requiring folks to hold coins for a longer period to get a payout. I'd suggest instead that the timeframe remain the same for base rewards, but adjusting payouts so that those who hold longer receive a greater bonus. That way you don't necessarily lock up coins in wallets seemingly forever, yet still provide an incentive to hold. The idea behind any crypto should be so it can be used as a currency in some fashion, and yes, I'm of course aware this coin is probably closer to a mutual fund than a currency... still... just wanted to comment that if a longer term hold is put in place, it shouldn't be so restrictive as to make people never, ever, want to use their coins or take them out of their wallets.

The level it was dumped to, and that fat sell order currently at 39K, make me think this is an attempt to get cheap coins rather than the more traditional and expected dump after payouts go out. Either that, or whomever is trying to sell their coins isn't exactly going about it the right way.

I expect the same trolly reasons most spreading fud have.

A) He/She sold high, and wishes to buy back in cheap. Then the trolls magically vanish after they get the price they want. Repeat as necessary. We got a brief dump, but it wasn't especially long-lasting nor provided a lot of panic sellers. More fud is needed.
B) Sold high, but doesn't want to buy back in. Instead they want the price to die, so they won't feel bad for selling.
C) Person is simply a generic troll. They enjoy spreading misery.

If it's not one of those, then pick mental problems, as otherwise it makes no sense.

The QBK order book is a weird one... extremely manipulatable right now.

Easy to kill the price, and easy to raise it. Not a whole lot on the buy or sell side of things.

I just wish I had a larger buy order in, and would have caught more on this quick dump. Still... made a couple hundred QBK for free by basically doing nothing, just catching the dump & reselling some after the recovery, so can't complain.

Unfortunately it's commonplace with many coins right after a price rise. Those that sell either want to buy back in cheaply (and of course they magically vanish, or go pro-coin if they get the price they want), or they prefer the price goes lower, just so they don't feel bad that they sold.

I'd think by now that most have noticed this pattern and would overlook trolling/fud... but some still don't.

I may be wrong, but I think that whale trader guy had some stuff going on in his life, so he didn't have time for crypto things -- not that things turned sour or he took the profits for himself. Remember he also donated a lot of QBK to folks during the 2nd round of payouts last month too.

Rather than ponzi scheme, I'd say it's an asset based coin with a somewhat high risk factor. Then again, I'd say just about every crypto would fall in that same high risk factor category too.

If cryptos tank, yeah, there logically wouldn't be profits. It's a risk. But if cryptos tank in general, it may not necessarily matter what you invest in, you'd probably lose money regardless. Consider it like a mutual fund ... some folks rather do their own trades, some folks rather have an investor do it for them.

At, umm... like .08 btc of QBK at ico prices, it's probably not getting worked up about. As for criticism, I believe she meant how you phrased it, not the criticism itself. Insinuations are different than constructive criticism.

If that is their sole means of profits, sure, it would be fishy. But it isn't. A lot of the stabilization fund stuff stabilized the price (not surprisingly), as they bought up coins during the low period of the coin. Since they pay out some folks with QBK, it'd could cost them more in the long run if they just sold QBK on the market, then had to buy it back to give away as dividends.

Plenty of coins have stabilization funds, but it doesn't make them all ponzis either.

A better criticism is asking for more info in regard to liquid assets, or assets not tied to trading (such as mining) and the exact income generated each month via those means. That way you'd have a rough estimate of money earned each month, semi-guaranteed, at least for the near future.