SUPERCOIN'S REVIVAL

[Majormax]

that was a send from the unmodified super wallet, to the new one (or anywhere really?)
yep nothing to see here folks, move along.. the walking dead

Certainly pretty lively when I start it up. Syncs fast and stakes like lightning.

[1715252858]

1715252858

[1715252858]

1715252858

[1715252858]

1715252858

[1715252858]

1715252858

[pro-investor]

Rebranding to a whole new name with a stronger coin tech & dev team sounds like the way to go?
But maybe we should still keep the "SuperSend" name as it sounds cool and was my idea.

What about "SuperDead" ?

definitely dead, well..

Looks like SuperDead on a defibrillator. Maybe there is still hope....LOL 

[mdtspain]

Being built with patience, care and testing at each step..

Looking good Barry/James. Good testing is the way to go 

[Griffith]

ECC should not be a part of this, it should only be MWC and SUPER on the new chain

[kiklo]

ECC should not be a part of this, it should only be MWC and SUPER on the new chain

Why should MWC be included, it is basically a dead coin.
Also would make the swap a lot simpler if it is Super only, and then no need to change names.


FYI:
ECC wallet at Bleutrade is offline, no response from their support yet.  


 

[CoinMin3r]

ECC should not be a part of this, it should only be MWC and SUPER on the new chain

Why should MWC be included, it is basically a dead coin.
Also would make the swap a lot simpler if it is Super only, and then no need to change names.


FYI:
ECC wallet at Bleutrade is offline, no response from their support yet.  


 

Yep MWC mustn't be included.
But yeah MWC can also use this system lonely to move to the new chain.

[Griffith]

Why should MWC be included, it is basically a dead coin.
Also would make the swap a lot simpler if it is Super only, and then no need to change names.


FYI:
ECC wallet at Bleutrade is offline, no response from their support yet.  
 

I responded in the other thread about ECC and feel free to PM me, but i think you are mistaken. ECC wallet is not offline with Bleutrade, i sent and withdrew coins from Bleutrade less than 2 hours ago. (at the time i responded to you in the other thread) and there is no problem with the wallet. it also doesnt have the alert symbol for wallet maintenance either.

and MWC was going to be included because the auto chain swap can put two coins onto one new chain.

Yep MWC mustn't be included.
But yeah MWC can also use this system lonely to move to the new chain.

There is no point to move MWC to new chain if it isnt being merged, the chain is small enough to function as is, it is only like 300MB memory max compared to supercoins 1.6 gigs.


I suppose we should put it to a vote if MWC gets merged with super into the new super or not. If the answer is no, then you dont really need to use barry's system at all... you can just condense the chain normally by reducing the size of each block index in memory and cleaning the chain. should reduce it by a minimum of 50% although i can run that test again if requested

should we just put it up to a vote?

[kiklo]

There is no point to move MWC to new chain if it isnt being merged, the chain is small enough to function as is, it is only like 300MB memory max compared to supercoins 1.6 gigs.


I suppose we should put it to a vote if MWC gets merged with super into the new super or not. If the answer is no, then you dont really need to use barry's system at all... you can just condense the chain normally by reducing the size of each block index in memory and cleaning the chain. should reduce it by a minimum of 50% although i can run that test again if requested

should we just put it up to a vote?

Considering this is a Supercoin community forum, I would say a vote would be in order, as they started a separate thread to break away from the trio of coins and reclaim their own personal community.
Merging MWC into Super now is kind of ignoring that fact.

Considering the work Barry has put into it , I would prefer he handle lead Dev at Supercoin & the swap while you handle the lead Dev at ECCoin,
that way your talents can be focused on a specific coin instead of disoriented on multiple coins, which was a problem to begin with.
I know alot of your time is being taken up with other projects and if Barry is willing would be a better solution for everyone.

But that is just my opinion, a formal vote should be held to decide.

 

FYI:
6 hours and still no response from Bleutrade's support and my ecc deposit has still not shown up there.

[mdtspain]

I think that there is no need for any votes.

The development of a coin should be in the hands of the developers, they should make the decision how to continue with the coin, not the investors that all have a focus on fast profit. Investors that don't like the direction that the developers go can step out while others will step in.

We have seen it many times now that the voting process is always manipulated with false votes and Never has brought anything good. It also is a sign that the developers are not sure what to do next.

So in my opinion NO VOTING

[kiklo]

I think that there is no need for any votes.

The development of a coin should be in the hands of the developers, they should make the decision how to continue with the coin, not the investors that all have a focus on fast profit. Investors that don't like the direction that the developers go can step out while others will step in.

We have seen it many times now that the voting process is always manipulated with false votes and Never has brought anything good. It also is a sign that the developers are not sure what to do next.

So in my opinion NO VOTING

Ok ,

So who is the Lead Dev of Supercoin Barry or Griffith?


 

[mdtspain]

I think that there is no need for any votes.

The development of a coin should be in the hands of the developers, they should make the decision how to continue with the coin, not the investors that all have a focus on fast profit. Investors that don't like the direction that the developers go can step out while others will step in.

We have seen it many times now that the voting process is always manipulated with false votes and Never has brought anything good. It also is a sign that the developers are not sure what to do next.

So in my opinion NO VOTING

Ok ,

So who is the Lead Dev of Supercoin Barry or Griffith?


 

Good one....Barry is putting a lot of work into it atm. Maybe you should ask them if they see this as a lead dev or sole dev? In other words...Is Barry willing to be the dev for Super if Griffith steps aside or do they prefer to work together?

[kiklo]

Good one....Barry is putting a lot of work into it atm. Maybe you should ask them if they see this as a lead dev or sole dev? In other words...Is Barry willing to be the dev for Super if Griffith steps aside or do they prefer to work together?

My issue is Griffith is tied up with ECCoin and Some of Vegas coins plus the coin wallet service part of flycoin,
that really leaves very little time for Supercoin.

Which I would like to see Barry take over Super as the recent timeline shows,
He has the time to be its Lead Dev , which will be a benefit for all of us that hold Supercoin.

But either way a choice needs to be made and announced.
I personally want to see a clear focus direction for this coin with someone spending the required time to make it great, and that will required a dedicated Dev.

Look at Nav coin , they are receiving accolades and a massive price spike for an anonymous PoS coin,
Supercoin should also be receiving that , but due to lack of focus, it is not, that needs to change.

 


FYI:
This is not meant as a slight toward Griffith,
He is a Talented Young Man with a Great Future Ahead of Him,
but right now Supercoin needs Dedicated Focus, and Barry (who also seems very Talented) is in a better place to provide it at this time, IMO.

[mdtspain]

Good one....Barry is putting a lot of work into it atm. Maybe you should ask them if they see this as a lead dev or sole dev? In other words...Is Barry willing to be the dev for Super if Griffith steps aside or do they prefer to work together?

My issue is Griffith is tied up with ECCoin and Some of Vegas coins plus the coin wallet service part of flycoin,
that really leaves very little time for Supercoin.

Which I would like to see Barry take over Super as the recent timeline shows,
He has the time to be its Lead Dev , which will be a benefit for all of us that hold Supercoin.

But either way a choice needs to be made and announced.
I personally want to see a clear focus direction for this coin with someone spending the required time to make it great, and that will required a dedicated Dev.

Look at Nav coin , they are receiving accolades and a massive price spike for an anonymous PoS coin,
Supercoin should also be receiving that , but due to lack of focus, it is not, that needs to change.

 

I agree on that

[CoinMin3r]

I think that there is no need for any votes.

The development of a coin should be in the hands of the developers, they should make the decision how to continue with the coin, not the investors that all have a focus on fast profit. Investors that don't like the direction that the developers go can step out while others will step in.

We have seen it many times now that the voting process is always manipulated with false votes and Never has brought anything good. It also is a sign that the developers are not sure what to do next.

So in my opinion NO VOTING

No offence but you're saying this coz you were once in the dev team of MWC.
Why should it get merged? They can operate individually & work fine.
Thanks

[mdtspain]

I think that there is no need for any votes.

The development of a coin should be in the hands of the developers, they should make the decision how to continue with the coin, not the investors that all have a focus on fast profit. Investors that don't like the direction that the developers go can step out while others will step in.

We have seen it many times now that the voting process is always manipulated with false votes and Never has brought anything good. It also is a sign that the developers are not sure what to do next.

So in my opinion NO VOTING

No offence but you're saying this coz you were once in the dev team of MWC.
Why should it get merged? They can operate individually & work fine.
Thanks

No offence but if you read it well...I respect the decision of the developer one way or the other.
I don't think it's good to let the people decide which way to go by voting as there is no honest voting.

[shrimpdigger]

I think that there is no need for any votes.

The development of a coin should be in the hands of the developers, they should make the decision how to continue with the coin, not the investors that all have a focus on fast profit. Investors that don't like the direction that the developers go can step out while others will step in.

We have seen it many times now that the voting process is always manipulated with false votes and Never has brought anything good. It also is a sign that the developers are not sure what to do next.

So in my opinion NO VOTING

No offence but you're saying this coz you were once in the dev team of MWC.
Why should it get merged? They can operate individually & work fine.
Thanks

No offence but if you read it well...I respect the decision of the developer one way or the other.
I don't think it's good to let the people decide which way to go by voting as there is no honest voting.

Lets not do voting then but lets get a general consensus of people opinions right here. If its too hard to call maybe using blockchain tech and our brains we can set up a way of honest voting.
Griffith to remain as leader/director/oversear, he has proven over time he has the best interests for the life of the coin at heart. He might not be the best at writing new code, thats ok. Thats why we look for devs that are for hire to work on new ideas. Grow the team.
The development of a coin should i think be in the hands of the community.
ECC i think should not be included, its coin count would throw things out, plus its true potential will be realized independently of other coins.
MWC and its low coin count is the perfect choice for going cross-chain. It was delisted recently from Bitrex, maybe there's opportunity here for it relisted as/with the new Super once new works has been reviewed and implemented.

[CoinMin3r]

Lets not do voting then but lets get a general consensus of people opinions right here. If its too hard to call maybe using blockchain tech and our brains we can set up a way of honest voting.
Griffith to remain as leader/director/oversear, he has proven over time he has the best interests for the life of the coin at heart. He might not be the best at writing new code, thats ok. Thats why we look for devs that are for hire to work on new ideas. Grow the team.
The development of a coin should i think be in the hands of the community.
ECC i think should not be included, its coin count would throw things out, plus its true potential will be realized independently of other coins.
MWC and its low coin count is the perfect choice for going cross-chain. It was delisted recently from Bitrex, maybe there's opportunity here for it relisted as/with the new Super once new works has been reviewed and implemented.

MWC have low coin but still have double than SUPER i.e. 50 millions more. Why to make things complicated mixing them? They should operate individually & independently.

[mamamae]

pretty much my idea of supercoin .
there are options in some months, if someone want to value the idea of super
going into stratis platform with BTC-N or  the new nxt 2.0 Ardor

MWC have low coin but still have double than SUPER i.e. 50 millions more. Why to make things complicated mixing them? They should operate individually & independently.

[Griffith]

well i can tell you that i messaged barry last night to remove ECC as the code he has was for MWC ECC AND SUPER. but it should now just be MWC and SUPER.

i have no problems with him running super from now on although at this point purely due to github status i am lead dev. i will pass it on if he wants it

My issue is Griffith is tied up with ECCoin and Some of Vegas coins plus the coin wallet service part of flycoin,
that really leaves very little time for Supercoin.

i actually havent done any dev work for ECC recently. i have some updates i want to test on it that i realized you could do when making an android wallet for the company i work at right now.

to clear up the stuff with vegas, as far as coin development goes i no longer actually code for any of his coins. i stepped down from that when i got the job at the crypto company i work at now. (which is what actually eats up most of my time). the only thing i do for vegas anymore is work with him on freelance dev work with any coin who needs something for a price. he deals with the people and i just make the products


edit: a lot of the stuff doesnt have to do with the code itself, but rather how the blockchain is actually stored and loaded on the computer (serialization process). turns out any of the 0.8x bitcoincore based coins like MWC ECC and SUPER all have the same space waste because of how they deal with orphan blocks. it is fixable. although might require a resync.

[jakiman]

It's really up to the devs but if I had any say in it, I would be strongly against merging SUPER with anything else.
If coin specs gets changed that significantly, it might as well be renamed as it's no longer the original SUPER.