To all new coin creators. If we can't mine it we don't want it.

[raminnoodle]

Most of the people on this forum are miners why would any of us be intrested in a coin that we can't use our investment (aka mining hardware) to obtain. It's obvious that this major influx of new coins can be exciting the reason why everyone loves this niche is because it gives everyone an equal chance. If you try and ruin it with premined/no mining crap coins than screw you don't bother.

[rarkenin]

Everyone has differing opinions. Instead of saying "screw you" pick a different coin.

Now, are you saying you don't like new PoW algorithms that don't let you use old equipment?

As for premining, very few people like it in the first place.

[raminnoodle]

Everyone has differing opinions. Instead of saying "screw you" pick a different coin.

Now, are you saying you don't like new PoW algorithms that don't let you use old equipment?

As for premining, very few people like it in the first place.

Did I say anything about new mining techniques..? Absolutely not, Innovation is the only thing that drives us forward.

I'm only saying this to the creators that aren't giving fair opportunity to the public. Could I have picked a better word to use instead of screw you.. Yes I could of and probably should of.

[tk808]

Most of the people on this forum are miners why would any of us be intrested in a coin that we can't use our investment (aka mining hardware) to obtain. It's obvious that this major influx of new coins can be exciting the reason why everyone loves this niche is because it gives everyone an equal chance. If you try and ruin it with premined/no mining crap coins than screw you.

Put him back in the newb forums

[rarkenin]

The phrase is "could have", not "could of". Secondly, what no-mining coins are you referring to?

[merred]

iCoin was the fail of the week. Very nice concept but lol @ parameters.

[raminnoodle]

The phrase is "could have", not "could of". Secondly, what no-mining coins are you referring to?

If my grammar is the issue we can take that to another forum.  I'm a better developer than writer. But as for the coins I'm speaking of you can view the two new coins that were just announced on this very forum on the front page.

[markm]

Miners' attitude kind of drives away business, y'know.

Even making it darn near free for them to mine a coin doesn't get them on board so coming up with technology that does not need miners at all becomes a necessity.

Long long ago CDN, MBC, UKB, UNS, NKL and so on moved away from using blockchains - moved away from using/needing miners - because it became clear that even bending over backward to accomodate miners by making a coin capable of being merged-mined right alongside Bitcoin using the same hashing power the miner is already using was not going to work, was not going to adequately secure the blockchains.

Bending over backwards isn't enough for the miners, it seems; they require everyone to bend over forwards instead. So to speak.

Miners evidently cannot be relied upon to do their part in securing blockchains even given merged mining; even though the marginal cost of merging a few more chains is almost negligible.

Miners thus became a big liability that blockchains accrue, making it more and more necessary to find alternative methods of securing ledgers / consensus.

-MarkM-

[burnum]

Miners' attitude kind of drives away business, y'know.

Even making it darn near free for them to mine a coin doesn't get them on board so coming up with technology that does not need miners at all becomes a necessity.

Long long ago CDN, MBC, UKB, UNS, NKL and so on moved away from using blockchains - moved away from using/needing miners - because it became clear that even bending over backward to accomodate miners by making a coin capable of being merged-mined right alongside Bitcoin using the same hashing power the miner is already using was not going to work, was not going to adequately secure the blockchains.

Bending over backwards isn't enough for the miners, it seems; they require everyone to bend over forwards instead. So to speak.

Miners evidently cannot be relied upon to do their part in securing blockchains even given merged mining; even though the marginal cost of merging a few more chains is almost negligible.

Miners thus became a big liability that blockchains accrue, making it more and more necessary to find alternative methods of securing ledgers / consensus.

-MarkM-

+1

[raminnoodle]

Miners' attitude kind of drives away business, y'know.

Even making it darn near free for them to mine a coin doesn't get them on board so coming up with technology that does not need miners at all becomes a necessity.

Long long ago CDN, MBC, UKB, UNS, NKL and so on moved away from using blockchains - moved away from using/needing miners - because it became clear that even bending over backward to accomodate miners by making a coin capable of being merged-mined right alongside Bitcoin using the same hashing power the miner is already using was not going to work, was not going to adequately secure the blockchains.

Bending over backwards isn't enough for the miners, it seems; they require everyone to bend over forwards instead. So to speak.

Miners evidently cannot be relied upon to do their part in securing blockchains even given merged mining; even though the marginal cost of merging a few more chains is almost negligible.

Miners thus became a big liability that blockchains accrue, making it more and more necessary to find alternative methods of securing ledgers / consensus.

-MarkM-

Great point.. thanks for educating instead of insulting.

[burnum]

Read about Hops, it seems like a coin that forces miners to mine or sell the coin from what i could gather, you mine to secure your investment.