IMHO, it would be illogical.

From the OP:
"We are capping share purchases to one purchase per account with a maximum investment of 20 mBTC."
[...]
"We Decided to cap the IPO to precaution prevent a small number of investors from holding a Majority of the coins."

So if you use the requirement of being a Junior to get the "free shares", and in doing so you recognize what are the
real users, and which probably only several puppets created at the time by a single user, then this requirement for
investors should be an even more stringent constraint.

Or Not?

Regarding the "Newbie", you're referring to your member status, which will prevent you from receiving the distribution?

I think that with Activity 28 you are very close to becoming a "Jr. Member".
In fact it would be a bit unfair not to be able to participate due to lack of only a couple of posts.

Try to respond to post in the forums and express your ideas, maybe you could make it in time to pass the level.

An initial distribution to really zero energy cost, very interesting.

Regarding the multiPool, instead of looking for a developer, who must reinvent the wheel from scratch,
IMHO it would be better to rely on an already existing big multiPool with proven reliability and efficiency,
and with many type of coin, that can start in a matter of days instead of weeks.

Afterwards you could possibly create a multipool owned, but only when everything goes to swollen sails.

Finally there is a thing leaves me a bit puzzled, considering the POS system and that only very few users will have
the funds, especially in the early days, do not you think that the blockchain will be very slow and unstable?

What I fear is that there will be a burst of blocks close together and then nothing for at least another 3 hours,
but I may be wrong.

To avoid this, do you have put in wallet some special system to prevent lockups and slowdowns of blockchain?

PS:
Please, Reserve a free share for me

One hour ago, I tried to transfer from cryptsy to a new address generated with v1.6.4.0,
first small amounts, 2.1, 5.9, 19.9, 32 PHS, all this withdrawals from cryptsy to my wallet
are gone well.

IMHO, Sometimes the blockchain seems too slow.

I'm sorry for your personal situation, this must be a really bad period.

Now a practical question:
In one of your previous posts, I think you said you have accepted the change
of name to RGB-Coin, and you had changed the source for this purpose.

But the version on github has not been changed, so the question is, what \ where
is the latest version of the source of the wallet?

No, I do not think so.
Do not do it, it would be a mistake.

SUM and SUM2 are two totally separate currencies, with independent blockchain.

You can not send a payment in SUM2 to an exchange that operates only in SUM, for example,
to sell what you mine now in exchange for BTC, you can not do now, nor ever.

To sell SUM2, it is necessary that the exchange constitutes a new market appropriate, just for SUM2.

The operation of the fixed exchange rate of 1:1, is another different thing and not to be confused,
and this operation will not be performed now, but only in a few days.

And it would not hurt to have as soon as possible also a block explorer running.

Unless contrary orders or confirmations by the DEV / Fondation.

PS:
Question: It was taken the precaution of making the addresses and SUM and SUM2
different and incompatible with each other, to avoid this kind of problems?

I would have preferred an exchange ratio even stronger, but at least it is a step in the right direction.



Really?  
In this case, I would have other small suggestions.

With these parameters, the money will be very fast, which I like a lot, just a minute and a half
to fully confirm a transaction, then this makes it interesting not only for staking but also
for simple daily transactions.
But I am afraid that this speed could result in an increased risk of problems due to the fork .

To avoid this kind of problems and make money not only fast, but above all safe and reliable,
IMHO three basic elements, I suggest you enable a BlockChain Explorer from the start of the currency.

I would also suggest you to implement right now, a system of automatic checkpoints, in order
to recognize and correct rapidly and in semi-automatic manner, the possible problems of forks.

Chances are you've already implemented it, but is not specified in the features, and if it is not
implemented, please think about it.

Finally, a last prayer, very often the coins based on the system with only the POS, in the course
of their life they encountered slowdowns, or even lethal freezing of the blockchain.

These problems have made the coin completely unusable and thus damaged the credibility of the
currency itself, with all the consequences that this brings to its price, and the amount of users.
Often to restart the blockchain needed a long and painful process of updating the wallet, sometimes
done sketchily because made by developers under the pressure of urgency.

So, to avoid this type of lethal freezes, I would suggest you do so that in case of need,
you dev and foundation (and only you), can immediately activate an emergency phase POW,
without requiring the need for a up-dates of users wallet .

This phase of emergency POW aimed at maintaining active the blockchain, would reward a block
mined with only a token amount, and should be dis \ activated by the reception of a remote control,
a special TXID, a signed message, or via an alert or something like that i
leave you to imagine, it spreads automatically via the nodes.

Said another way, a kind of spare wheel which is always present and ready in all the wallets,
but it is normally disabled.

IMHO, this type of precautions, do not affect too much on the total number of coins generated,
already quite high, but it would make the currency more solid and reliable, and consequently also
the greater cash value and also of technical merit

Bye

Ehmmm. No, I did not mean that. Sorry to have been unclear.

I mean that right now is the time to think and discuss the characteristics
and function that must have the wallet, before it is released.
Before is too late.

Let me explain:
As with any project, it is much easier to add or change something when
it is still in the design phase, rather than adding something extraneous
when it has already been launched and distributed.

In this case, this mean when the new coin's blockchain has already been
launched and is in circulation, and users have _entrusted their money_ to the wallet.
Intervening later, it is certainly possible, but it is risky and complicated.

IMHO, I do not see now reason to be rushed. So why not talk about it now?

Without a secure method to fund long-term technical management of coin, imho I do not
see a future that is worth to follow, unless you want a disposable currency, valid only for
very short-term speculation.

If you'll pardon the play on words, what do we want a lasting currency or a coin that will
last only one season?

They are both valid choices, depending on your tastes and how you want to use, just that at least
we are told before.

The foundation with the announcement a few days ago, imho seems directed on the right path,
assuming a block tax.
I just wanted to give them a way to better explain what will be, and give to everyone the possibility
to discuss and improve it by providing a different point of view.

There are also a couple of other things that I would suggest as a simple user,
but I really in danger of becoming too boring.

Instead of Summer why not instead call it Autumn?
After all, autumn is the time that you collect mature fruits of summer.

And now I address myself to dev and to the foundation.
If I understand then new project / proposal, with a fixed exchange transaction or
in other manner, for every Sum possessed we could get 2 of the new coins.

From this, one quickly learns the true value of the new currency, inevitably will be very very low,
half of what is now worth a SUM.

So at current price, at the time of the launch of the new currency would be worth just 100 satoshi. !!
IMHO, with a low value does not promise well for the future, in a very short time would be almost 0.

Since you want to create a new currency, IMHO it would be better to reformulate the project to try
to get immediately a value much more "relevant".

This could be achieved, greatly reducing the number of new coins and its exchange rate with the old currency.
I mean, not a large total mass of 100M coins as proposed now, but only 10M, or better yet just 1M,
an exchange transaction a bit like it was made in France in the transition from old francs to new francs (100->1).

Of course you will be adapted \ scale all other parameters, including the fixed exchange rate with the V1 Sum.

At the beginning this drastic change could create a little bad mood in the old owners, but IMHO make the currency
more rare now could lead to a more promising future, when there will inevitably be dealing with the loss
of value due to the time and the creation of new coin with the POS.

Regarding the financing of the foundation with a block tax, I basically agree, but IMHO should be discussed better.

For example the fee should not be generated in the POW period, as was done with SUM V1, but especially
during the POS, as is done in HobokenNickel with the Stake for Charity, but with the difference that it would
not be a form of voluntary donation, but a commission proportional specifically used for the support of
the foundation that has the only task is to support the currency.

So not a substantial remuneration in the short initial phase, as occurs in other currencies,
where the amount paid can not longer be controlled, and the coins are soon left to
themselves by the dev (as has happened to so many coins recently), but instead a small
constant support, active only as long as the money lives.

Given the recent past, I think this method of refinancing, make everyone more relaxed about
the lasting commitment of the team of developers.

I say this with no offense to new developers and members of the foundation, it is primarily to
make sure that everyone can perceive the difference, to make it clear right from the
conception of the project.

Of course, these are just my opinions.

Thanks Alchemie , I hope that your message can be of guidance and encouragement.

I would still take advantage of your knowledge and ask your opinion on a quirk that
I saw in the source code , perhaps it is irrelevant, maybe not, probably the result of
a lapse in the process of " search & replace " .
It seems to me that a table has been modified in the implementation of slgoritm X11.

I refer in particular to the file cubehash.c line 102:
SPH_C32 ( 0x85254725 ) , SPH_C32 ( 0x15818AEB ) , SPH_C32 ( 0x4AB6AAD6 ) ,

while in a different source, perhaps more reliable, here
 http://cpansearch.perl.org/src/GRAY/Digest-CubeHash-XS-0.05/src/cubehash.c
there is :
SPH_C32 ( 0x85254725 ) , SPH_C32 ( 0x15815AEB ) , SPH_C32 ( 0x4AB6AAD6 ) ,

and "15818" as you know is the number of rpcpport , which is specific of each wallet,
and it must have been changed after the source has been cloned.
But I do not really understand the reason to change a single value in a standard
algorithm, then I fear that the algorithm X11 was ruined by accident.

I can not imagine then what you may think of CitizenCoin, 935m and a 35% annual interest.
IMHO, with the 0.001% per annum simply people would forget this currency.

Regading to the excessive amount of coins, I have a question,
in the field of crypto currencies, someone has already tried a
mandatory change operation similar to the one made in the 60s
in France from old francs to new francs (100 -> 1)?


Regarding to your idea of "renting" a number of nodes to keep the
network alive, imho, this is a solution that would work, but
personally I do not like very much [1].
 
Your idea should be discussed better, for example, the fund needed to pay
the rent could be obtained automatically with a kind of "restraint" on
POS interest, as was done with the "Stake for Charity" of HoboNickels, but
not voluntary, but fix, firmly intended to support the network, providing
in this manner a fair and long-lasting source of funding.

Nor is there a big pre-eminent, which soon after launch you no longer
have any control (and dumped), but a kind of source that lives and grows
only _if_ it also does the coin, it seems to me much more fair and acceptable.

[1]
I fear that a few node rent solution, could make the cryptocurrency
too centralized, which instead are born to be decentralized.

On the contrary, I'd like a system that remunerated more active nodes (in rotation),
not based on how powerful is their machine (POW) or possess (POS), but just based
on their active persistence in the network, imho this would push all user to maintain
an alive network.
(And more the network is weak, more the reward become convenient)

I do not know if something like this has been tried, and the
consequences have already been assessed, but if it as to develop ...
I think it *here* is not the case.

PS:
"Small" correction. 
Although I think that would be a fair reward system, however, I realized that could expose
the coin to hijack attempts on the part of a bot-net, consisting of a multitude of many small nodes.

No Fabio, I must have badly expressed my reasoning.

I do not claim at all the paternity of the solution, I could not because isn't mine.
This temporary solution has already been done in the past with other currencies that have had problems with the POS.

My discontent relates only to the loss of time that has been here.

In other words not just a +1 support as you asked, but much more than +10.

So no offense at all on my part.

I would say to you, "You can feel serene, You can feel comfortable", but I would not be misunderstood again.

Coff... Coff... Ehem... Fabio, I must to say something ?
This solution I had already suggested two days ago,
but so far it has been totally ignored.

Or the dev thought to be very close to the solution, and does not want
to make two mandatory updates too close ... or ... or... bho?!?!?!
I can not think of any other alterative that should impede this solution.

Given that ColorCoin is derived from BadgerCoin, which in turn derives from WhiteCoin,
I guess for you this situation is a kind of deja vu. 

Could you be so kind to briefly summarize what the problem was in the WC and what were the steps that led to the solution?

Perhaps this description could be a source of illumination to solve problems here too.

So it is better expressed, although the details are important,
for example, the maturing time.

IMHO, now with the POS mode only, comes the need to encourage users
so that the wallet is always open and active 24/7, just to keep alive and
safe the network... well, when it will start working again.

If users know that it is useless to keep open the wallet because it does not
produce interest until the next day, I believe that many users simply choose to close it,
unaware of the implications or not.


Compromise .. 5% per month or 60% per annum. :-))
So we are all happy. (Just a joke)



About the Hobonickesl, I would add that the wallet is kept up to date,
and is innovative with cutting-edge features that are often then bring in other currencies.

By copying the sign of another user, I would also like to mention some other currencies:
"   / \ Tek - 500% / \ HoboNickels - 100% / \ PhilosopherStone - 50% / \ ZeitCoin - 25% "

All of this are on Cryptsy. Most of these are mixed coin POW/POS, but some are migrating to the POS model only.

To be clear, I agree with you, both of you, too much interest and too little are not desirable.

In general, we evaluate the interest rate of an investment based on its risk, but we
can calculate the risk of long-term investment of a cryptocoin?


PS:
News by dev, on the front of the Bug?

Were you able to isolate the type of problem, or to identify the common symptoms?

When it comes to finding a needle in a haystack, maybe we can help, a dozen eyes
can find it more easily than 2, but first we must understand what we have to try.

I understand your frustration in trying a little bug, and the pressure that you feel here,
so to avoid misunderstandings, with what I have to say I do not want to offend, nor be angry.

Had you tried a full life cycle of money in the testnet, including the transition to the pos?




Five per cent of interest daily, any day, for ever?
Do you have done the math? Get a huge calculator.

IMHO, on long term this interest is unsustainable.
Too much coin, the coin will get 0 value very soon.


As a "temporary" solution, until the problem is solved,
do you have think to simply  prolong the POW phase?

This would have several practical advantages:
1) The community would back its currency alive and functioning.
2) The pool should not close but instead may have again their clients to mine
3) It would also give to the few who still do not know the coin, the possibility
to mine it, and so the coin could expand its user base
4) It should be easy to implement, even without finding the bug.
5) You can find the solution with little bit less pressure.

The main disadvantage is that it will increase the mass of coins in circulation,
and this is a factor to consider. If necessary, you could reduce the reward of
future blocks until the POS problem is resolved.


I think part of the success of a currency also depends on the prestige of its
developer and its ability to hold together the community that adopts it.

If the developer does not proves to be able to identify the first problem
that presents itself to its product and find a remedy, but instead tries to
give up and start another project ...
Well ... I think that few will ever lend him any more attention or follow
him in his projects.

So my advice is:
Want to start other projects, use other sources, other solutions?
Ok, but first find an acceptable remedy for this problem. ASAP

Again... sorry for the tone, no offense.

A nice clean job, maybe a little too dark. (personal taste)

IMHO If the name of the coin is RGB you should give more emphasis to 3 main colors,
but that's just my opinion

Only RGB as official  name?

IMHO RGB is an acronym too much used in computer terms, a google search will not bring you to information relevant to this coin.

We need a name with something "unique", or at least a little more specific.

How about RGBCoin?

Are you serious?

CRC Coin -> CRoCk Coin

Please do not be cruel.
The situation is already grotesque by itself.
Why we want add to the actual damage other derision?

for what it's worth, in every sense, the wallet seems to work.

From the picture you sent, we can note two things:
1) At that time the wallet was still synchronizing block-chain and loading a large number of blocks.
So even generating POS blocks, these could not be sufficiently up to date with the rest of the network,
and I guess that is why they have been rejected by other nodes.

To prevent this from happening, you should start your wallet frequently, so that you synchronize it more often,
making the operation even shorter.

A safer alternative is to lock your wallet before you close it, this inhibits any further activities (including POS).
After starting the program, the synchronization begin, and only when it has been completed successfully,
you can unlock again your wallet for POS.  (Other type of coin disable automatically POS during sync,  but not all)

2) You had a low number of connections to the network.
This greatly increases the chances of creating orphans blocks.
Theoretically, this event is not a big loss, the generation of the POS block should be tried again some time later,
as soon as possible, but if the condition persist or the net is too slow (lag) the orphan block may be repeated again.

However, it may be useful to increase the number of fixed nodes known to the wallet, modifying the list indicated in
summercoin.conf with a more updated list.
I hope someone with many active nodes will publish an updated list.

These are general recommendations gathered here and there in the guides of other coins with the POS,
which are definitely expressed more clearly in their FAQ, and should also be valid for SummerCoin.