[ANN] STRAKS - A POW/Masternode Cryptocurrency focused on e-commerce utility

[puprush]

The DOC was not the original dev, nor was SigtD.

The original dev did the right thing, he made the coin and went away, just like Bitcoin.

This will put an end to that theory https://github.com/signatumd

signatumd does not = Doc, they were 2 different people.

[1713582440]

1713582440

[1713582440]

1713582440

[DalmationCadet]

Explained some of the swapping process here under "The Swap Mechanics" header: https://www.reddit.com/r/STRAKSproject/comments/7exg0k/straks_information/

If you have any questions please message me on discord 

Also the swap is not a first come first serve basis. More explained in the reddit thread.

When will the swap officially started for swapping from SIGT to STRAKS? Thank you dev.

Not a dev  Just asking the devs questions in discord, They announced that'd it be sometime early December no exact date yet though.

Thank you. I am sorry for my mistake when called you as a dev. Why developers not answer questions, announce them on the forum, official topic for STRAKS? It's a little bit weird, strange approach.

They're somewhat active in the discord, most of the supporters will be happy to answer any questions though

[Epicyclic]

The DOC was not the original dev, nor was SigtD.

The original dev did the right thing, he made the coin and went away, just like Bitcoin.

This will put an end to that theory https://github.com/signatumd

signatumd does not = Doc, they were 2 different people.

No, Doc was not, you are correct on that count, however, you clearly stated here that SigtD, or SignatumD or Skank as he was also known as, was not either;

The DOC was not the original dev, nor was SigtD.

You are wrong or misinformed, SigtD was the original developer.

[Epicyclic]

The developers remained silent until the last seconds that the swap will be held for 6 years.
Before that, they pumped up the sigt and sold their bags to fools

Its possible, however, it is also possible they did not want Signatum to pump, so as not to harm Straks.

there is always more than one side to a scenario to say the least.

You say - Its possible, however, it is also possible, they did not want Signatum to pump
But the community Signatum wants a pump!
Why razabotchiki pursue only their own interests?
Or they already sell their Signatum and first of all need pump Straks.

Like I said, anything is possible, right now all I see is a room full of speculation and accusation, nothing more.

Every man has his own theory, every man has his own beliefs, nobody will change that fact.

As for "razabotchiki" I have no idea at all whom this is, or whom you refer to.

[Epicyclic]

By the way, in Russian "Criptovore" sounds - Cripto thief)))

Good job it is spelt CryptoVore then and not "Criptovor"

Vore is a suffix of the adjective "vorous" and usually correlates to the meaning of "to eat, or consume" for example Herbivore or Carnivore

[sibisi666]

I don't get it, why you crying all about??? 6 years drama...
You don't need to wait at all, you could sell your sigt and but stark, and there  you go you swapped your sigt, and you can continue with your life...

[Marco Bignoses]

The developers remained silent until the last seconds that the swap will be held for 6 years.
Before that, they pumped up the sigt and sold their bags to fools

Its possible, however, it is also possible they did not want Signatum to pump, so as not to harm Straks.

there is always more than one side to a scenario to say the least.

You say - Its possible, however, it is also possible, they did not want Signatum to pump
But the community Signatum wants a pump!
Why razabotchiki pursue only their own interests?
Or they already sell their Signatum and first of all need pump Straks.

Like I said, anything is possible, right now all I see is a room full of speculation and accusation, nothing more.

Every man has his own theory, every man has his own beliefs, nobody will change that fact.

As for "razabotchiki" I have no idea at all whom this is, or whom you refer to.

Yeah and they choose the worst way to explane things to their community first and also to everyone too.
Speculations and accusations had could be stopped just with a proper communication and not a suspicious coming out of some foundamental news for the coins' inverstors.
If they simply commucicated the details before the MN details, all this fud didn't come.
Their choice, their mistake, their responsibility.

[relayd]

How is your suggestion any better than what Straks is now? Basically your suggestion is to switch to a technically worse algo, remove the burn which means the swap can't be handled in a fair way, and not give any incentive for the devs to do any work in the future. How does that help or solve anything?

You're suggesting that nobody is interested in mining Straks and that the project is doomed. Currently the network hash rate for Straks is 120 GH/s which is 40 GH/s more on average than it was yesterday. So clearly there's plenty of support for Straks. It seems people are willing to mine a coin without even knowing it's value.

I'm just speculating on what should have happened from the start not that either of these suggestions can be applied right now, it's too late in my opinion. Probably something else needs to be done, if anything can be done at all.

As far as worse algo, while the new hash algorithm is interesting, people with AMD cards are not able to mine it at a good hash rate, which excludes a huge chunk of former SIGT users who are interested in mining.

In regards to the burn, there is a concern if it can really be executed fairly and transparently, so by removing it entirely and not having a cost to adopt this new coin makes it easier for people to switch? I'm not entirely sure what would have been the best course of action, but from my thinking the entire burn thing is tricky.

Incentive for the devs is a very complex subject, because it tends to gravitate towards a pump and dump situation. If the devs really believed in the longevity of this coin, they were first in position to basically buy or mine a bunch at a low price using their own funds versus creating it out of thin air. I would say that from the community viewpoint a coin without premine and dev fees is more appealing.

Last night hashrate at this time was around 100-115GH/s and now I am seeing 85GH/s, so it appears to be going down.

[Chromexnet]

I'm finally catching up on the last few days posts and this shit is golden!  I hate to take credit for debunking this scam, but it seems like my posts caused people to finally look into this scam.  Really the best part of this all are the people who defended this coin after my posts, and now they are suddenly silent after the terms of the coin swap have been changed.  I'm sure the devs made a killing on the SIGT run though!  And to add insult to injury, the swap information is still not in the announcement!  This is the first time I have ever seen github used as a a platform to announce coin information over a website or forum.  In the end though, I'm glad that the people mining this quickly saw the scam, and the idiots still holding sigt got fucked.  Trusting any venture that is related to sigt would be like buying a new currency created by Nicolas Maduro

Oh please, you were complaining about Straks mining not being profitable because of the Sigt swap. In fact your exact words were:

LOL coming from someone with -4 trust.  The fact that you can buy another coin for a swap cheaper than mining shows how unfair this coin is.  If its cheaper to buy another coin who is going to mine it?  If its not mined, how does the blockchain move?  A coin swap in this case literally serves no purpose other than to pad the wallet of bagholders.  Say what you want, but certainly the devs are holding a significant amount of SIGT.  And if they are not, they are complete fucking idiots, because this coin will never be more valuable than 4x the value of SIGT, which is essentially worthless.  Imagine what would happen to the value of the American dollar if the government announced that it would start exchanging $1 for 4 Venezuelan Bolivars.

Now after the latest announcement the situation has changed; it became clear that the coins from Sigt swap will not immediately flood the Straks market. That's a good sign for Straks and means the value of Straks can go much higher. It also means the profitability of mining is much better. In essence you got what you asked. But you're still here complaining. 

Btw, the swap information is present in the annoucement since yesterday, see update UPDATE - 24th November.

I was also surprised by the latest announcement. It means people who own Sigt can't immediately get their money back. Six years is a long time to wait. I can understand many people are upset because of that. I agree the devs should have clarified the details of the swap sooner. Then again, people assumed a swap means an instant swap. I admit I was one of them and did profitability calculations based on it. However, I still think you can make profit by buying Sigt. You can think it's like an investment to an ASIC miner. An ASIC miner has a fixed upfront cost and in return you get specific coins back each month until the ASIC miner becomes outdated. In the same way you can now buy Sigt coins (upfront cost) and in return get Straks coins back each month for six years. The profitability depends on how much you pay for Sigt and what's the value of Straks in the future.

You say - buy Signatum and there will be a profit of 6 years!
Do you believe in your words? are you naive?
Why did the developers reserve several million Straks for themselves?
Why Signatum owners must wait 6 years!
You suggest - believe the developers 6 years?
Straks and 6 months may not exist!
How can you believe people who are anonymous
We still do not know anything about the Doctor, maybe he already rested, came back and came up with a new scam plan for 6 years!
Nobody knows, maybe now the Doctor himself runs the developers of Straks
Better to sell Signatum, and in exchange to buy a more honest and promising crypto currency.
And no longer believe the developers of Straks and Signatum.

Of course there is risk involved, just like there's risk involved in investing to an ASIC miner. No coin is a 100% safe bet in crypto world. You need to do your own risk and profit analysis and then decide if you want to buy Sigt now. If you think 6 months is the lifetime of Straks then do your profit calculations based on 6 months' returns.

[Chromexnet]

How is your suggestion any better than what Straks is now? Basically your suggestion is to switch to a technically worse algo, remove the burn which means the swap can't be handled in a fair way, and not give any incentive for the devs to do any work in the future. How does that help or solve anything?

You're suggesting that nobody is interested in mining Straks and that the project is doomed. Currently the network hash rate for Straks is 120 GH/s which is 40 GH/s more on average than it was yesterday. So clearly there's plenty of support for Straks. It seems people are willing to mine a coin without even knowing it's value.

I'm just speculating on what should have happened from the start not that either of these suggestions can be applied right now, it's too late in my opinion. Probably something else needs to be done, if anything can be done at all.

As far as worse algo, while the new hash algorithm is interesting, people with AMD cards are not able to mine it at a good hash rate, which excludes a huge chunk of former SIGT users who are interested in mining.

In regards to the burn, there is a concern if it can really be executed fairly and transparently, so by removing it entirely and not having a cost to adopt this new coin makes it easier for people to switch? I'm not entirely sure what would have been the best course of action, but from my thinking the entire burn thing is tricky.

Incentive for the devs is a very complex subject, because it tends to gravitate towards a pump and dump situation. If the devs really believed in the longevity of this coin, they were first in position to basically buy or mine a bunch at a low price using their own funds versus creating it out of thin air. I would say that from the community viewpoint a coin without premine and dev fees is more appealing.

Last night hashrate at this time was around 100-115GH/s and now I am seeing 85GH/s, so it appears to be going down.

So basically you don't have a better suggestion but you think the choices that were made were wrong?

There was a good Lyra2V2 miner for AMD: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2360168 It seems be down at the moment, maybe someone can upload the binaries?

If you remove the burn but allow swap to happen, how do you control which coins have been swapped already? For example, if someone swaps their coins and then sells them on an exchange, how is the buyer supposed to know they have been swapped already? What if someone finds a way to re-swap them? Burning after swap is really the best solution.

If there's no premine, no ICO and no dev fees then how are the devs supposed to be paid? You do realize the devs can't mine anything if there's several hundreds of GH/s being thrown at the coin right from the start, like was the case with Straks?

The hash rate seems to be very volatile at the moment but on average it's higher today than yesterday.

[DalmationCadet]

How is your suggestion any better than what Straks is now? Basically your suggestion is to switch to a technically worse algo, remove the burn which means the swap can't be handled in a fair way, and not give any incentive for the devs to do any work in the future. How does that help or solve anything?

You're suggesting that nobody is interested in mining Straks and that the project is doomed. Currently the network hash rate for Straks is 120 GH/s which is 40 GH/s more on average than it was yesterday. So clearly there's plenty of support for Straks. It seems people are willing to mine a coin without even knowing it's value.

I'm just speculating on what should have happened from the start not that either of these suggestions can be applied right now, it's too late in my opinion. Probably something else needs to be done, if anything can be done at all.

As far as worse algo, while the new hash algorithm is interesting, people with AMD cards are not able to mine it at a good hash rate, which excludes a huge chunk of former SIGT users who are interested in mining.

In regards to the burn, there is a concern if it can really be executed fairly and transparently, so by removing it entirely and not having a cost to adopt this new coin makes it easier for people to switch? I'm not entirely sure what would have been the best course of action, but from my thinking the entire burn thing is tricky.

Incentive for the devs is a very complex subject, because it tends to gravitate towards a pump and dump situation. If the devs really believed in the longevity of this coin, they were first in position to basically buy or mine a bunch at a low price using their own funds versus creating it out of thin air. I would say that from the community viewpoint a coin without premine and dev fees is more appealing.

Last night hashrate at this time was around 100-115GH/s and now I am seeing 85GH/s, so it appears to be going down.

So basically you don't have a better suggestion but you think the choices that were made were wrong?

There was a good Lyra2V2 miner for AMD: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2360168 It seems be down at the moment, maybe someone can upload the binaries?

If you remove the burn but allow swap to happen, how do you control which coins have been swapped already? For example, if someone swaps their coins and then sells them on an exchange, how is the buyer supposed to know they have been swapped already? What if someone finds a way to re-swap them? Burning after swap is really the best solution.

If there's no premine, no ICO and no dev fees then how are the devs supposed to be paid? You do realize the devs can't mine anything if there's several hundreds of GH/s being thrown at the coin right from the start, like was the case with Straks?

The hash rate seems to be very volatile at the moment but on average it's higher today than yesterday.

Here you go: https://mega.nz/#!QfYizYoT!VCeVDGOBG1k7nerO3pjLU-lSpOMop_GRD_6hZelJxbg . Taken from the mining channel, use at your own caution however.

[dark981]

nice plan to screw sigt buyers with this this 6 year plan lol really works nice it attracted a lot new miners ... or not lol hashpower declining trust is lost with team

talk about centralized decisions in a decentralized environment haha SAD.

[tmh33]

How can we know when we will receive the coins?

[relayd]

So basically you don't have a better suggestion but you think the choices that were made were wrong?

Yes I am just looking at what is known and how I think it should have been done. The problem for now is that no matter what the solution is going forward, I don't really see a way out. If they cancel the swap now SIGT will tank and confidence will be lost in devs, if they reverse premine or restart coin there are also various implications. Very tough call and I wish the developers and users the best. I will also say the current plan of 6 years is way too ambitious, I think the vast majority can't believe that a small altcoin like this would even last a few years (if not months). On top of that, this coin is so entangled with Signatum, which has such a tragic and shady history that it's simply unbelievable from my perspective.

There was a good Lyra2V2 miner for AMD: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2360168 It seems be down at the moment, maybe someone can upload the binaries?

That looks interesting, I was not aware of it. But there seem to be various limitations, like it only supports nicehash? Seems to have a fee and violates GPL? Also the binaries are missing as you say, and obviously no source available.

If you remove the burn but allow swap to happen, how do you control which coins have been swapped already? For example, if someone swaps their coins and then sells them on an exchange, how is the buyer supposed to know they have been swapped already? What if someone finds a way to re-swap them? Burning after swap is really the best solution.

That's a good point, but of course the simple solution would be to hold the coin during swap and return after swap is complete. Or the most simple solution would be a 1:1 fork, if you wanted to simply continue SIGT.

If there's no premine, no ICO and no dev fees then how are the devs supposed to be paid? You do realize the devs can't mine anything if there's several hundreds of GH/s being thrown at the coin right from the start, like was the case with Straks?

That's a valid point as well, but I feel confidence of the community would have been much higher if there was no premine or fees. But I already answered this question, if the devs really thought this coin was worth it they could use their own funds to buy it early or invest in early mining. The entire point of any coin is that value is supposed to increase with time, if devs don't see this happening then it seems like another pump and dump situation. Also keep in mind that the reason originally why SIGT gained some popularity is due to the fact that there were no fees, ICO or premine.

The hash rate seems to be very volatile at the moment but on average it's higher today than yesterday.

Well i don't know about that, I was testing mining around this time and it was at least 100Mh/s and now it's 85Mh/s so seems a bit lower.

-----------------------

Now here is a question for you Chromexnet. Do you actually believe that the current plan will work out? What suggestions are you willing to propose? Because as you can tell there are quite a few people voicing their opinion right now and it's not looking good. Do you really believe this coin will succeed with the current plans in motion?

Furthermore I just want to say, I am not a big holder of any coins, and have never invested any major amount into anything. I just love to experiment with mining on my computers. So I was never burned by SIGT, but I found it interesting and certainly some of the early hype was exciting. I was able to mine several hundred SIGT, mostly just to test things out & it was never worth much even at the very height. So my perspective is outside devs, bag holders, speculators/investors, etc. I'm just trying to figure things out and to see what the best solution moving forward, as I was interested in the continuation of SIGT community after everyone was so badly treated. A lot of opinion is clouded by people having certain investments, just wanted to point out this is not the case for me.

[Chromexnet]

So basically you don't have a better suggestion but you think the choices that were made were wrong?

Yes I am just looking at what is known and how I think it should have been done. The problem for now is that no matter what the solution is going forward, I don't really see a way out. If they cancel the swap now SIGT will tank and confidence will be lost in devs, if they reverse premine or restart coin there are also various implications. Very tough call and I wish the developers and users the best. I will also say the current plan of 6 years is way too ambitious, I think the vast majority can't believe that a small altcoin like this would even last a few years (if not months). On top of that, this coin is so entangled with Signatum, which has such a tragic and shady history that it's simply unbelievable from my perspective.

There was a good Lyra2V2 miner for AMD: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2360168 It seems be down at the moment, maybe someone can upload the binaries?

That looks interesting, I was not aware of it. But there seem to be various limitations, like it only supports nicehash? Seems to have a fee and violates GPL? Also the binaries are missing as you say, and obviously no source available.

If you remove the burn but allow swap to happen, how do you control which coins have been swapped already? For example, if someone swaps their coins and then sells them on an exchange, how is the buyer supposed to know they have been swapped already? What if someone finds a way to re-swap them? Burning after swap is really the best solution.

That's a good point, but of course the simple solution would be to hold the coin during swap and return after swap is complete. Or the most simple solution would be a 1:1 fork, if you wanted to simply continue SIGT.

If there's no premine, no ICO and no dev fees then how are the devs supposed to be paid? You do realize the devs can't mine anything if there's several hundreds of GH/s being thrown at the coin right from the start, like was the case with Straks?

That's a valid point as well, but I feel confidence of the community would have been much higher if there was no premine or fees. But I already answered this question, if the devs really thought this coin was worth it they could use their own funds to buy it early or invest in early mining. The entire point of any coin is that value is supposed to increase with time, if devs don't see this happening then it seems like another pump and dump situation. Also keep in mind that the reason originally why SIGT gained some popularity is due to the fact that there were no fees, ICO or premine.

The hash rate seems to be very volatile at the moment but on average it's higher today than yesterday.

Well i don't know about that, I was testing mining around this time and it was at least 100Mh/s and now it's 85Mh/s so seems a bit lower.

-----------------------

Now here is a question for you Chromexnet. Do you actually believe that the current plan will work out? What suggestions are you willing to propose? Because as you can tell there are quite a few people voicing their opinion right now and it's not looking good. Do you really believe this coin will succeed with the current plans in motion?

Furthermore I just want to say, I am not a big holder of any coins, and have never invested any major amount into anything. I just love to experiment with mining on my computers. So I was never burned by SIGT, but I found it interesting and certainly some of the early hype was exciting. I was able to mine several hundred SIGT, mostly just to test things out & it was never worth much even at the very height. So my perspective is outside devs, bag holders, speculators/investors, etc. I'm just trying to figure things out and to see what the best solution moving forward, as I was interested in the continuation of SIGT community after everyone was so badly treated. A lot of opinion is clouded by people having certain investments, just wanted to point out this is not the case for me.

Fair enough, I do agree on most points you make. It's a pleasure to have a civilized conversation for a change. It seems to many people in this thread are just trolling hard.

As for your question, I really can't say what will happen. I do have trust on the devs and I think they are doing a good job in a tough situation. As far as I can see they have been honest and it's just bad timing (and bad luck) on certain announcements that have got them into trouble. It's not easy to please both parties; Straks miners and Sigt holders at the same time. But since both parties are now complaining I guess it means the devs have the balance sort of right.

Whether the coin lives or not, I think that really depends on the community. Even if the devs do a great job, if the community drops the support and the coin value tanks then obviously there's no incentive to keep developing further. That's why I'd hope there would be more constructive discussion here on how the coin should be developed in the future. Moaning about the swap details, or accusing devs of pump and dump (which there isn't any proof of) isn't really helping in anything. Btw, I'm not referring to you relayd but some others in this thread.

[relayd]

Pleasure to have a discussion with you as well, I hold no grudges towards this coin or signatum, just making a few very simple observations based on my thoughts in the open. I have nothing to lose or gain from any of this. I do wish the best for all the users of this coin and for the people left holding signatum, and of course my observation can be wrong and I unfortunately can't yet offer a solution from my thinking either. At at same time I don't see much success given the current situation. Perhaps if some further adjustments are made and some things are given more thought by more people, it might be possible? So good luck to all.

[Ginzink]

The 6 years is probably the right move for straks miners, but i do feel i got tricked with the timings. Ive held sigt since the first week, only traded to get more. But now for the first time i have no sigt. Also i were going to mine straks but i just dont trust the devs unfortunately. But with trading and the pump i got out with a ok amount of btc, unfortunately with the way markets work i recovered on someone elses expense, and i feel sorry for thoose. Often i have been on that side. Got a small buy order under 20 satoshi through if it is dumped. At that value it is worth the risk. Maybe if devs somehow regain my trust i will buy sigt higher or buy/mine straks

[saponetes]

What risks do i incur if i do not want to intend the swap from Sigt to straks?
I know that sigt could end anytime, due to lack of exchange.
Can Doc "switch off" the sigt button or he can't do much things about it?
I already assumed my losses with sigt so i think i do not want to enter in straks project that do not seems to me very realistic with swap times of 6 years.
I also prefered that straks was  more scarce, like 40/50millions at most. The only flaw that i saw at signatum project (too much cojns) apart short minded devs that killed a potencial golden eggs chicken just to make short term profit instead concentrating in the project at long term.
If a lot of people swap sigt for staks, sigt will be more scarce.
Like someone said sigt is a community driven coin and if dev left project  like satoshi did with bitcoin can this kill sigt?

[Dyvz]

Network hashrate keep getting lower day by day, i assume it will be stable  in 1-2 weeks then the real price can be named

[sasha55]

What risks do i incur if i do not want to intend the swap from Sigt to straks?
I know that sigt could end anytime, due to lack of exchange.
Can Doc "switch off" the sigt button or he can't do much things about it?
I already assumed my losses with sigt so i think i do not want to enter in straks project that do not seems to me very realistic with swap times of 6 years.
I also prefered that straks was  more scarce, like 40/50millions at most. The only flaw that i saw at signatum project (too much cojns) apart short minded devs that killed a potencial golden eggs chicken just to make short term profit instead concentrating in the project at long term.
If a lot of people swap sigt for staks, sigt will be more scarce.
Like someone said sigt is a community driven coin and if dev left project  like satoshi did with bitcoin can this kill sigt?

Signatum, LUX, STRAKS are  the same developers of the coin, where there is a Scam, and everywhere you can say "...left project as Satoshi did with bitcoin, it can kill Sigma?"