[ANN][BTCZ] BitcoinZ - Low Fees, 100% Community, POW-Equihash No-Premine No-Tax

[Tktktk]

You want artificially to lower supply after some people mined milions of btcz (and that way rise price)? Slim shaddy

First of all, bitcoin was created as a means of payment, and all money is subject to inflation. Reducing the speed of issuance of new coins is a involuntary measure. I, as a simple member of the community, support this action.

But what about those people who mined milions of btcz and hold? Will they also be subject of inflation? Or some people will suddenly became "milionares"?

We have to think about this, because this sudden lowering of block rewards for 10x!! after just 3 months instead of halving after 4 years (as declared) can be seen as - "refined premine". And I don't support that. And generaly, I think BTCZ should stay as-is and those who don't like it, well, thay can always fork into new coin

This is not a premine. It was not originally founded by one group of people for personal enrichment. The decision to change the award for the block was taken by the community. Those who extracted millions and become "millionaires" extracted them under equal conditions, stipulated by the algorithm and the complexity of the network. Millionaires can become those who bought this coin on the stock exchange when it grew in price. You do not call the "refined premine" produced bitcoin in 2010 when the complexity of the network was low and people extracted thousands of them. Simply, many then did not believe in him. And innovators, those who believed and tried to get deservedly received their award.

You don't need to explain that BTCZ is not premine, it's known. In your example you forgot one thing about BTC - it never changed halving period and that way affecting rate of supply, and thats why everyone had equal chances. I just wanted to tell btcz community that artificial change of supply can be seen badly in other comunities, potentional future investors and especially market exchanges. It could be considered "refined premine".

There was no equal chance for all. I did not have a computer at that time. I could not get bitcoin. I just did not know about him. For me, bitcoin is the first in its industry of digital money but not the standard. Bitcoin developers did not provide scalability of the network. The awarding of the award for the block was taken for some of their criteria conditionally for 4 years, but who said that it is true? The markets and the industry are too volatile. On the contrary, it is attractive for me as an investor that we can fast react by consensus and make positive adjustments to the digital asset - btsz. Only dynamic models are viable, we do not have to turn our coins into a stone statue. Now the market requires a reduction in supply. And we must take action. After all, one of the goals btcz is to increase the cost and turn into a payment instrument.

We'll leave BTC disqusion, and continue just on BTCZ ...

First, it is not market requiring change of supply. Most voices for that change come from HODL-ers which expected fast price surge and fast profits. But yes, there deffinitely needs to be change of supply, this model of supply planed by btcz developers is not sustainable. It's just theirs oversight (or is it?) of values while planing coin.

Second, artificial change of btcz supply like proposed in this thread will convert BTCZ into scam coin. By that model you'll have part of same coins worth more and other part of coins worth less - on same market. Only thing which could be changed without significantly affecting value of mined btcz on market and unmined btcz is period of halving. Instead of 4 years, that could be easily changed to 1 year, 6 months, something like "Camel" distribution (see Sumo coin supply), or something else. Just that way would be fair for everyone.

Your main argument - By that model you'll have part of same coins worth more and other part of coins worth less - on same market. But with fluctuations in the price of the exchange, the value of the coins that were extracted yesterday and today also changes. In cases of a decrease or increase in the complexity of a network with the same capacity, the volume of production also changes the value of the extracted coins, respectively. This is happening in the same market. There will always be coins produced and received with different values.

[okok32]

Hello. What has the community decided about the reduction of remuneration? will it? and how will this affect the value of the coin? Thank you

[gsanjin]

You want artificially to lower supply after some people mined milions of btcz (and that way rise price)? Slim shaddy

First of all, bitcoin was created as a means of payment, and all money is subject to inflation. Reducing the speed of issuance of new coins is a involuntary measure. I, as a simple member of the community, support this action.

But what about those people who mined milions of btcz and hold? Will they also be subject of inflation? Or some people will suddenly became "milionares"?

We have to think about this, because this sudden lowering of block rewards for 10x!! after just 3 months instead of halving after 4 years (as declared) can be seen as - "refined premine". And I don't support that. And generaly, I think BTCZ should stay as-is and those who don't like it, well, thay can always fork into new coin

This is not a premine. It was not originally founded by one group of people for personal enrichment. The decision to change the award for the block was taken by the community. Those who extracted millions and become "millionaires" extracted them under equal conditions, stipulated by the algorithm and the complexity of the network. Millionaires can become those who bought this coin on the stock exchange when it grew in price. You do not call the "refined premine" produced bitcoin in 2010 when the complexity of the network was low and people extracted thousands of them. Simply, many then did not believe in him. And innovators, those who believed and tried to get deservedly received their award.

You don't need to explain that BTCZ is not premine, it's known. In your example you forgot one thing about BTC - it never changed halving period and that way affecting rate of supply, and thats why everyone had equal chances. I just wanted to tell btcz community that artificial change of supply can be seen badly in other comunities, potentional future investors and especially market exchanges. It could be considered "refined premine".

There was no equal chance for all. I did not have a computer at that time. I could not get bitcoin. I just did not know about him. For me, bitcoin is the first in its industry of digital money but not the standard. Bitcoin developers did not provide scalability of the network. The awarding of the award for the block was taken for some of their criteria conditionally for 4 years, but who said that it is true? The markets and the industry are too volatile. On the contrary, it is attractive for me as an investor that we can fast react by consensus and make positive adjustments to the digital asset - btsz. Only dynamic models are viable, we do not have to turn our coins into a stone statue. Now the market requires a reduction in supply. And we must take action. After all, one of the goals btcz is to increase the cost and turn into a payment instrument.

We'll leave BTC disqusion, and continue just on BTCZ ...

First, it is not market requiring change of supply. Most voices for that change come from HODL-ers which expected fast price surge and fast profits. But yes, there deffinitely needs to be change of supply, this model of supply planed by btcz developers is not sustainable. It's just theirs oversight (or is it?) of values while planing coin.

Second, artificial change of btcz supply like proposed in this thread will convert BTCZ into scam coin. By that model you'll have part of same coins worth more and other part of coins worth less - on same market. Only thing which could be changed without significantly affecting value of mined btcz on market and unmined btcz is period of halving. Instead of 4 years, that could be easily changed to 1 year, 6 months, something like "Camel" distribution (see Sumo coin supply), or something else. Just that way would be fair for everyone.

Your main argument - By that model you'll have part of same coins worth more and other part of coins worth less - on same market. But with fluctuations in the price of the exchange, the value of the coins that were extracted yesterday and today also changes. In cases of a decrease or increase in the complexity of a network with the same capacity, the volume of production also changes the value of the extracted coins, respectively. This is happening in the same market. There will always be coins produced and received with different values.

If that is happening than it is scam coin By your example, you want to say that my fresh mined 1 BTCZ is worth yours 0,5 yesterday mined BTCZ's
Only controled supply or supply by calculable criteria allows that every published unit of one currency have the same value ... I recommend reading this link - https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply

[swisstrader]

 I recommend reading the section III. of BTCZ white paper.

[shvck]

I recommend reading the section III. of BTCZ white paper.

Do you mean "Proposal Systems / Voting" ??

[kole666]

IOS WALLET?

[chancefx]

IOS WALLET?

It is possible to TestFlight the iOS wallet sending an email to admin@bitcoinz.ph for the invite link.

[Tktktk]

You want artificially to lower supply after some people mined milions of btcz (and that way rise price)? Slim shaddy

First of all, bitcoin was created as a means of payment, and all money is subject to inflation. Reducing the speed of issuance of new coins is a involuntary measure. I, as a simple member of the community, support this action.

But what about those people who mined milions of btcz and hold? Will they also be subject of inflation? Or some people will suddenly became "milionares"?

We have to think about this, because this sudden lowering of block rewards for 10x!! after just 3 months instead of halving after 4 years (as declared) can be seen as - "refined premine". And I don't support that. And generaly, I think BTCZ should stay as-is and those who don't like it, well, thay can always fork into new coin

This is not a premine. It was not originally founded by one group of people for personal enrichment. The decision to change the award for the block was taken by the community. Those who extracted millions and become "millionaires" extracted them under equal conditions, stipulated by the algorithm and the complexity of the network. Millionaires can become those who bought this coin on the stock exchange when it grew in price. You do not call the "refined premine" produced bitcoin in 2010 when the complexity of the network was low and people extracted thousands of them. Simply, many then did not believe in him. And innovators, those who believed and tried to get deservedly received their award.

You don't need to explain that BTCZ is not premine, it's known. In your example you forgot one thing about BTC - it never changed halving period and that way affecting rate of supply, and thats why everyone had equal chances. I just wanted to tell btcz community that artificial change of supply can be seen badly in other comunities, potentional future investors and especially market exchanges. It could be considered "refined premine".

There was no equal chance for all. I did not have a computer at that time. I could not get bitcoin. I just did not know about him. For me, bitcoin is the first in its industry of digital money but not the standard. Bitcoin developers did not provide scalability of the network. The awarding of the award for the block was taken for some of their criteria conditionally for 4 years, but who said that it is true? The markets and the industry are too volatile. On the contrary, it is attractive for me as an investor that we can fast react by consensus and make positive adjustments to the digital asset - btsz. Only dynamic models are viable, we do not have to turn our coins into a stone statue. Now the market requires a reduction in supply. And we must take action. After all, one of the goals btcz is to increase the cost and turn into a payment instrument.

We'll leave BTC disqusion, and continue just on BTCZ ...

First, it is not market requiring change of supply. Most voices for that change come from HODL-ers which expected fast price surge and fast profits. But yes, there deffinitely needs to be change of supply, this model of supply planed by btcz developers is not sustainable. It's just theirs oversight (or is it?) of values while planing coin.

Second, artificial change of btcz supply like proposed in this thread will convert BTCZ into scam coin. By that model you'll have part of same coins worth more and other part of coins worth less - on same market. Only thing which could be changed without significantly affecting value of mined btcz on market and unmined btcz is period of halving. Instead of 4 years, that could be easily changed to 1 year, 6 months, something like "Camel" distribution (see Sumo coin supply), or something else. Just that way would be fair for everyone.

Your main argument - By that model you'll have part of same coins worth more and other part of coins worth less - on same market. But with fluctuations in the price of the exchange, the value of the coins that were extracted yesterday and today also changes. In cases of a decrease or increase in the complexity of a network with the same capacity, the volume of production also changes the value of the extracted coins, respectively. This is happening in the same market. There will always be coins produced and received with different values.

If that is happening than it is scam coin By your example, you want to say that my fresh mined 1 BTCZ is worth yours 0,5 yesterday mined BTCZ's
Only controled supply or supply by calculable criteria allows that every published unit of one currency have the same value ... I recommend reading this link - https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply

Maybe you misunderstood me. Maybe I misunderstood you.
In the article on this link there is nothing new for me. Nominally, many coins fit the definition: "Only controled supply or supply by calculable criteria allows that every published unit of one currency have the same value". But we can have different cost of electricity and consumed energy of video cards, which we extract, which allows for example you to extract for the same production capacity the different numbers of coins. Correspondingly for you the cost of the extracted coin will be less than for me.

[Tktktk]

Let me give you such a comparison. We work at the factory on the same positions and receive the same salary in the shares of the plant. Next week, we are reduced by the salary (but the shares rose in price). And the fact, for example, that I work earlier than you and, accordingly, I have accumulated more shares does not mean that the factory or I are scammers.

[gsanjin]

snap

Maybe you misunderstood me. Maybe I misunderstood you.
In the article on this link there is nothing new for me. Nominally, many coins fit the definition: "Only controled supply or supply by calculable criteria allows that every published unit of one currency have the same value". But we can have different cost of electricity and consumed energy of video cards, which we extract, which allows for example you to extract for the same production capacity the different numbers of coins. Correspondingly for you the cost of the extracted coin will be less than for me.

We understood each other that both of us agree something has to be done Lets just do that properly, following BTCZ white paper, section III, "Proposals Systems / Voting".

[bitbitu]

Hello everyone! We launched the site in Russian (https://btcz.tech/), we will gradually fill it with information. Also launched the node 
There are all preconditions that the coin will continue to grow! 

Great site! Thank you

[Tktktk]

snap

Maybe you misunderstood me. Maybe I misunderstood you.
In the article on this link there is nothing new for me. Nominally, many coins fit the definition: "Only controled supply or supply by calculable criteria allows that every published unit of one currency have the same value". But we can have different cost of electricity and consumed energy of video cards, which we extract, which allows for example you to extract for the same production capacity the different numbers of coins. Correspondingly for you the cost of the extracted coin will be less than for me.

We understood each other that both of us agree something has to be done Lets just do that properly, following BTCZ white paper, section III, "Proposals Systems / Voting".

Yes, good, btcz best of the best.

[gsanjin]

Hello everyone! We launched the site in Russian (https://btcz.tech/), we will gradually fill it with information. Also launched the node 
There are all preconditions that the coin will continue to grow! 

Site is done great - fast, clean, simple and informative! Congrats!

[malandante]

zk SNARKS.. didn't this coin need a parameter generation ceremony?

https://z.cash/technology/paramgen.html

yeah I would like to know this too

it inherited the params from the zcash ceremony.

I supposed that. Thank you!

[trung12ly]

Halving block reward just serve the early miners and holders (probably devs) to make money fast. Some short term profit can be seen but is non organic and will ruin the coin's future.

[llbrunoll]

You want artificially to lower supply after some people mined milions of btcz (and that way rise price)? Slim shaddy

First of all, bitcoin was created as a means of payment, and all money is subject to inflation. Reducing the speed of issuance of new coins is a involuntary measure. I, as a simple member of the community, support this action.

But what about those people who mined milions of btcz and hold? Will they also be subject of inflation? Or some people will suddenly became "milionares"?

We have to think about this, because this sudden lowering of block rewards for 10x!! after just 3 months instead of halving after 4 years (as declared) can be seen as - "refined premine". And I don't support that. And generaly, I think BTCZ should stay as-is and those who don't like it, well, thay can always fork into new coin

This is not a premine. It was not originally founded by one group of people for personal enrichment. The decision to change the award for the block was taken by the community. Those who extracted millions and become "millionaires" extracted them under equal conditions, stipulated by the algorithm and the complexity of the network. Millionaires can become those who bought this coin on the stock exchange when it grew in price. You do not call the "refined premine" produced bitcoin in 2010 when the complexity of the network was low and people extracted thousands of them. Simply, many then did not believe in him. And innovators, those who believed and tried to get deservedly received their award.

You don't need to explain that BTCZ is not premine, it's known. In your example you forgot one thing about BTC - it never changed halving period and that way affecting rate of supply, and thats why everyone had equal chances. I just wanted to tell btcz community that artificial change of supply can be seen badly in other comunities, potentional future investors and especially market exchanges. It could be considered "refined premine".

There was no equal chance for all. I did not have a computer at that time. I could not get bitcoin. I just did not know about him. For me, bitcoin is the first in its industry of digital money but not the standard. Bitcoin developers did not provide scalability of the network. The awarding of the award for the block was taken for some of their criteria conditionally for 4 years, but who said that it is true? The markets and the industry are too volatile. On the contrary, it is attractive for me as an investor that we can fast react by consensus and make positive adjustments to the digital asset - btsz. Only dynamic models are viable, we do not have to turn our coins into a stone statue. Now the market requires a reduction in supply. And we must take action. After all, one of the goals btcz is to increase the cost and turn into a payment instrument.

We'll leave BTC disqusion, and continue just on BTCZ ...

First, it is not market requiring change of supply. Most voices for that change come from HODL-ers which expected fast price surge and fast profits. But yes, there deffinitely needs to be change of supply, this model of supply planed by btcz developers is not sustainable. It's just theirs oversight (or is it?) of values while planing coin.

Second, artificial change of btcz supply like proposed in this thread will convert BTCZ into scam coin. By that model you'll have part of same coins worth more and other part of coins worth less - on same market. Only thing which could be changed without significantly affecting value of mined btcz on market and unmined btcz is period of halving. Instead of 4 years, that could be easily changed to 1 year, 6 months, something like "Camel" distribution (see Sumo coin supply), or something else. Just that way would be fair for everyone.

Your main argument - By that model you'll have part of same coins worth more and other part of coins worth less - on same market. But with fluctuations in the price of the exchange, the value of the coins that were extracted yesterday and today also changes. In cases of a decrease or increase in the complexity of a network with the same capacity, the volume of production also changes the value of the extracted coins, respectively. This is happening in the same market. There will always be coins produced and received with different values.

If that is happening than it is scam coin By your example, you want to say that my fresh mined 1 BTCZ is worth yours 0,5 yesterday mined BTCZ's
Only controled supply or supply by calculable criteria allows that every published unit of one currency have the same value ... I recommend reading this link - https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply

We should be careful about all this. Halving fast, by vote, for me sounds like scam ( and I understand very well the term "refined premiere" ... it really seems something like that ). Why? Because halving 10x will certainly bring a price up pressure, and all current holders might benefit of that. Something completely different would be : Vote for reducing the halving time from 4 yrs to 6 months. This way, we are giving more predictability to BTCz, and markets need that as well (to gain trust).  I know both options result in the same: Halving. But the second one would mean a change which is going to be kept from now on, with predictability in time.   We can not go through halving by vote like it is being proposed by dev. It really sound like scam that way. It sounds like there is no predictability for this coin. It sounds like the coin will be subject to crazy turns every time someone rises an "urgent voting issue" .   Lets be patient. Price is no plunging killing us. We are stable at 70sat. Now we should spread the word about BTCz. Halving for December? Please... lets be patient, and think about what this means for our future image. Lets be solid with the idea of "no place for scam here"

[btcsmlcmnr159]

Today, BitcoinZ price has stayed around 70 satoshi. Personally, it's good chance for buying and holding the coin at the current low price. It has huge potential for long-term investment. There are lots of miners mining the coin, hence there are lots of opportunites for pumps in the future. Happy mining!

[malandante]

There's nothing wrong about changing block reward as long as it's a change that makes sense. Dogecoin started with a random block reward like Luckycoin, which code was used for the coin, and then changed it to 250,000 fixed and continued its reward halving schedule. Dogecoin supply was meant to be capped but they discovered a bug in the code that would make it not be capped. Then IIRC Jackson Palmer though it was a good idea to keep it uncapped and there was no problem about that. Coins can have many problems (wolong, moolah). Block reward changing is not one of them.

Edit: typo

[zositarik]

it's nonsense to intervene unless there is a technical problem. This money is starting to go out of purpose.

[longasleep]

There's nothing wrong about changing block reward as long as it's a change that makes sense. Dogecoin started with a random block reward like Luckycoin, which code was used for the coin, and then changed it to 250,000 fixed and continued its reward halving schedule. Dogecoin supply was meant to be capped but they discovered a bug in the code that would make it not be capped. Then IIRC Jackson Palmer though it was a good idea to keep it uncapped and there was no problem about that. Coins can have many problems (wolong, moolah). Block reward changing is not one of them.

Edit: typo

this halving of the block reward is a great way to improve a coin