[ANN] [ASIC-RESISTANT] UltraCoin (UTC) - Ultrafast 6 second transactions!!

[mizultra]

Price going down as we haven't been on coinmarketcap for 2 days. Why haven't you sorted this, surly you look on there 2-3 times a day to see what's going on in crypto land.

As one of the biggest 'bag holders' I have to say this isn't the coin I invested over $25k  into and I'm against making it full POS. I thought this was a long term coin focused on development and not too concerned about its price as the price will go up naturally as it became more accepted in marketplaces. I'm also against this decision been made to completely make it a different coin without consultation with the community.

I have to question the mine craft idea also. If you are so confident it will attract lots of interest why not wait until the mine craft idea is complete and availble.
I'm not getting into an argument and don't really want people to reply. I just wanted to have my say as I read this thread 2 times a day and haven't spoken up about my views

+1

Funsponge, I feel the same way.

If UTC goes full POS with and drops the ASIC-resistance and compromises the transaction speed, it's not even the same coin that we originally invested in. I thought we were making headway by driving the UTC acceptance and the Devs were working on the promised project initiatives.

The arguments against going seem very reasoned and thoughtful, the only reason I see for POS is "We need to do something drastic!".

I would agree that we need to do something drastic, but full POS doesn't sound like the cure.

[1714757786]

1714757786

[1714757786]

1714757786

[longyenthanh]

i think something wrong with the payout of x11 again. I have average 90mh but only received 733 coins.

[jacobshm]

Price going down as we haven't been on coinmarketcap for 2 days. Why haven't you sorted this, surly you look on there 2-3 times a day to see what's going on in crypto land.

As one of the biggest 'bag holders' I have to say this isn't the coin I invested over $25k  into and I'm against making it full POS. I thought this was a long term coin focused on development and not too concerned about its price as the price will go up naturally as it became more accepted in marketplaces. I'm also against this decision been made to completely make it a different coin without consultation with the community.

I have to question the mine craft idea also. If you are so confident it will attract lots of interest why not wait until the mine craft idea is complete and availble.
I'm not getting into an argument and don't really want people to reply. I just wanted to have my say as I read this thread 2 times a day and haven't spoken up about my views

well said

[utcminer]

Price going down as we haven't been on coinmarketcap for 2 days. Why haven't you sorted this, surly you look on there 2-3 times a day to see what's going on in crypto land.

As one of the biggest 'bag holders' I have to say this isn't the coin I invested over $25k  into and I'm against making it full POS. I thought this was a long term coin focused on development and not too concerned about its price as the price will go up naturally as it became more accepted in marketplaces. I'm also against this decision been made to completely make it a different coin without consultation with the community.

I have to question the mine craft idea also. If you are so confident it will attract lots of interest why not wait until the mine craft idea is complete and availble.
I'm not getting into an argument and don't really want people to reply. I just wanted to have my say as I read this thread 2 times a day and haven't spoken up about my views

+1

[trogdorjw73]

Okay, so the owner of the biggest pool for UTC back in the early days helped start CAI (with several other pool operators, though I'm not sure if any were related to UTC). Unfortunately, the editing and deleting of old posts makes it difficult to "check and investigate better". Stuhlman probably had a bunch of UTC, and he probably cashed out a long time ago as well. Such is life. But changing to 100% PoS is no panacea -- it just makes things messy and ultimately I don't think it's likely to do much other than allow all the GPU miners to quit supporting Ultra. That's fine I suppose -- let all the big bag holders continue to hold and try to figure out ways to get people to invest in UTC. But if you're trying to tell anyone that investing in UTC now is a good idea, I've got some beach front property in CA that I'll sell you for pennies on the dollar as well!

You have some great insight, trogdorjw73. People should listen to you if they want 'smart' investors.

I don't understand your disdain with Scrypt-Jane (more appropriately named scrypt-chacha). I agree on the point you made about the NFactors scaling way too quickly at the beginning and killing momentum from initial investment. But isn't it good now with the NFactor changes far between (I'm thinking more yacoin of course)? I think around 1 year between NFactor changes would be more ideal although I admit pretty arbitrary. VertCoin (4 year between each NFactor change) is apparently going to get hit with ASICs, and I for one can't stand those scammy companies.

I also wouldn't overlook the hybrid POW/POS. I mean as the volume of coins increases over time, the percentage of coins created by POS increases over POW. You become an almost POS only coin when 95% of the coins that enter circulation each day come from POS. I'm too lazy right now to calculate when that would happen, but you get my point.

Scrypt-Jane was a specific implementation of Scrypt-Chacha with pre-programmed N-Factor changes, and fundamentally my problem is that they were poorly chosen. Now we're at the point where things are slowing down, but it's also "too difficult" to get miners up and running, so only those that got in early are still worried about mining UTC. Really, can you imagine anyone new to the cryptocurrency scene saying, "Oh, look at UTC -- I wonder how I can get set up to mine at NF-13?" They can do Scrypt, X11, X13, etc. and mine any of a couple hundred coins, whereas Scrypt-Jane requires tweaking parameters for just one coin (or at least on N-Factor). It's a major pain in the butt! Scrypt-N is practically the same algorithm but with NF changes more widely spaced; in January the first Scrypt-N coin will move to NF-11, and most of the difficulties with that N-Factor are now known; the next change will be in another year or more, so SJ gets to pave the way with little reward for doing so.

The ironic thing is that all of this was done to "protect us from the evil ASICs", and yet I'm not even convinced ASICs are the real enemy here. This has become a big business, and that means the small fries (you, me, and anyone else that can't invest millions of dollars) are probably just lucky to have gotten in early enough to have made some good earnings. I don't think we'll actually see a fully functional Scrypt-N ASIC in a time frame that will be profitable for the buyers, but the manufacturers of the ASIC will still make money -- or just scam people and disappear with the coins they're paid. But how do you stop that from happening? Government oversight, laws, regulations, etc. are all things that BTC was trying to avoid early on, yet now we're trending more and more towards having all of them. Oops.

As far as PoS goes, it was basically designed as a way to reduce power requirements while keeping the network secure from a 51% attack, and it does well in that regard. The problem is that it doesn't encourage use of a coin, and there are all sorts of weird things that go on with PoS coins like scaling of the interest rates, or poor coding (cloning of a poorly coded implementation), etc. The rewards are also terribly stingy on many coins (Blackcoin), so if the idea is to have people leave the wallet running 24/7 to support the network, there needs to be a real incentive to do so. This fad that started with BC where it's somehow better to distribute all of the coins in a one week period and then shift to PoS strikes me as a huge money grab as well. At least UTC would have been around for a long time before making the switch, but of course it's going to require a hard fork again and people will get upset about fundamental changes to the design of UTC.

Really, in retrospect (yes, I know: hindsight is always 20/20), UTC was not designed properly. I can say the same of many coins, including BTC and LTC, but what's done is done. Block reward halving is convenient in terms of knowing the block reward for long periods of time, and it doesn't necessarily reward the first miners with the most coins, but slowly scaling down (e.g. sort of like DRK, though it could still be improved) seems better. Fast NF adjustments -- ever -- is just chaotic. As someone that mined a bunch of the SJ coins when they were new, almost every NF change would cause issues on every mining PC I have. The power efficiency issue is also real -- I have given up on Scrypt-N and anything else above NF-10 for that reason, and of course vanilla Scrypt is now in the domain of the Scrypt ASICs. And as for the block times... they're just too short, as I noted already.

So given all of the above, what's the "ideal" new coin? First and foremost, it has to bring something new. If you clone an existing coin and just tweak the parameters a bit and create a new image and name, you've created a coin that's basically just a money grab from the developers (and to an extent the whole cryptocurrency community). You need at least some sort of major new feature. For example, stuff like a built-in exchange system in the wallet would be useful, or at least a way to check the current prices; Stealth Transaction type features are also useful. Most other "additions" are just fooling around trying to pretend to be different. I don't think in-wallet games are useful, as that's just a time sink and people have lives they need to live (e.g. you can't have five different wallets with games running and expect a person to play/mine/whatever all of them at the same time).

If UTC is going to hard fork to PoS, they ought to look at some other fundamental changes. The coin went from what -- 6 seconds to 20 seconds to 30 seconds for the block times? 30 seconds might be okay now, but one minute still seems more reasonable to me, especially given PoS will be more consistent. Now add in something like Stealth Transactions (similar to the new VTC), and a built-in ABE-style block explorer, and the ability to do a VeriSend type of transaction (send BTC via UTC) and we're looking at something useful. At that point, if you can make all of those additions, is it better to fork from UTC or would it be best to just make a new coin? Or does the market really just want some of these features for an existing coin that is already well regarded (BTC, LTC, etc.)?

The coming alt-coin apocalypse is going to be messy, and I'd guess that less than 10% of alt-coins will really be doing anything worthwhile in another year -- and maybe even 5%. It's like a business that expands too rapidly and suddenly has 3000 retail locations, and then they realize they're not getting enough customers at each location and so a few years later they file for bankruptcy and close most of the stores. Cryptocurrencies have done basically that right now, and while not all of the coins were created in such a way as to be deemed "junk copies", there will be some "good" coins that die along with the "bad".

[utcminer]

Okay, so the owner of the biggest pool for UTC back in the early days helped start CAI (with several other pool operators, though I'm not sure if any were related to UTC). Unfortunately, the editing and deleting of old posts makes it difficult to "check and investigate better". Stuhlman probably had a bunch of UTC, and he probably cashed out a long time ago as well. Such is life. But changing to 100% PoS is no panacea -- it just makes things messy and ultimately I don't think it's likely to do much other than allow all the GPU miners to quit supporting Ultra. That's fine I suppose -- let all the big bag holders continue to hold and try to figure out ways to get people to invest in UTC. But if you're trying to tell anyone that investing in UTC now is a good idea, I've got some beach front property in CA that I'll sell you for pennies on the dollar as well!

You have some great insight, trogdorjw73. People should listen to you if they want 'smart' investors.

I don't understand your disdain with Scrypt-Jane (more appropriately named scrypt-chacha). I agree on the point you made about the NFactors scaling way too quickly at the beginning and killing momentum from initial investment. But isn't it good now with the NFactor changes far between (I'm thinking more yacoin of course)? I think around 1 year between NFactor changes would be more ideal although I admit pretty arbitrary. VertCoin (4 year between each NFactor change) is apparently going to get hit with ASICs, and I for one can't stand those scammy companies.

I also wouldn't overlook the hybrid POW/POS. I mean as the volume of coins increases over time, the percentage of coins created by POS increases over POW. You become an almost POS only coin when 95% of the coins that enter circulation each day come from POS. I'm too lazy right now to calculate when that would happen, but you get my point.

Scrypt-Jane was a specific implementation of Scrypt-Chacha with pre-programmed N-Factor changes, and fundamentally my problem is that they were poorly chosen. Now we're at the point where things are slowing down, but it's also "too difficult" to get miners up and running, so only those that got in early are still worried about mining UTC. Really, can you imagine anyone new to the cryptocurrency scene saying, "Oh, look at UTC -- I wonder how I can get set up to mine at NF-13?" They can do Scrypt, X11, X13, etc. and mine any of a couple hundred coins, whereas Scrypt-Jane requires tweaking parameters for just one coin (or at least on N-Factor). It's a major pain in the butt! Scrypt-N is practically the same algorithm but with NF changes more widely spaced; in January the first Scrypt-N coin will move to NF-11, and most of the difficulties with that N-Factor are now known; the next change will be in another year or more, so SJ gets to pave the way with little reward for doing so.

The ironic thing is that all of this was done to "protect us from the evil ASICs", and yet I'm not even convinced ASICs are the real enemy here. This has become a big business, and that means the small fries (you, me, and anyone else that can't invest millions of dollars) are probably just lucky to have gotten in early enough to have made some good earnings. I don't think we'll actually see a fully functional Scrypt-N ASIC in a time frame that will be profitable for the buyers, but the manufacturers of the ASIC will still make money -- or just scam people and disappear with the coins they're paid. But how do you stop that from happening? Government oversight, laws, regulations, etc. are all things that BTC was trying to avoid early on, yet now we're trending more and more towards having all of them. Oops.

As far as PoS goes, it was basically designed as a way to reduce power requirements while keeping the network secure from a 51% attack, and it does well in that regard. The problem is that it doesn't encourage use of a coin, and there are all sorts of weird things that go on with PoS coins like scaling of the interest rates, or poor coding (cloning of a poorly coded implementation), etc. The rewards are also terribly stingy on many coins (Blackcoin), so if the idea is to have people leave the wallet running 24/7 to support the network, there needs to be a real incentive to do so. This fad that started with BC where it's somehow better to distribute all of the coins in a one week period and then shift to PoS strikes me as a huge money grab as well. At least UTC would have been around for a long time before making the switch, but of course it's going to require a hard fork again and people will get upset about fundamental changes to the design of UTC.

Really, in retrospect (yes, I know: hindsight is always 20/20), UTC was not designed properly. I can say the same of many coins, including BTC and LTC, but what's done is done. Block reward halving is convenient in terms of knowing the block reward for long periods of time, and it doesn't necessarily reward the first miners with the most coins, but slowly scaling down (e.g. sort of like DRK, though it could still be improved) seems better. Fast NF adjustments -- ever -- is just chaotic. As someone that mined a bunch of the SJ coins when they were new, almost every NF change would cause issues on every mining PC I have. The power efficiency issue is also real -- I have given up on Scrypt-N and anything else above NF-10 for that reason, and of course vanilla Scrypt is now in the domain of the Scrypt ASICs. And as for the block times... they're just too short, as I noted already.

So given all of the above, what's the "ideal" new coin? First and foremost, it has to bring something new. If you clone an existing coin and just tweak the parameters a bit and create a new image and name, you've created a coin that's basically just a money grab from the developers (and to an extent the whole cryptocurrency community). You need at least some sort of major new feature. For example, stuff like a built-in exchange system in the wallet would be useful, or at least a way to check the current prices; Stealth Transaction type features are also useful. Most other "additions" are just fooling around trying to pretend to be different. I don't think in-wallet games are useful, as that's just a time sink and people have lives they need to live (e.g. you can't have five different wallets with games running and expect a person to play/mine/whatever all of them at the same time).

If UTC is going to hard fork to PoS, they ought to look at some other fundamental changes. The coin went from what -- 6 seconds to 20 seconds to 30 seconds for the block times? 30 seconds might be okay now, but one minute still seems more reasonable to me, especially given PoS will be more consistent. Now add in something like Stealth Transactions (similar to the new VTC), and a built-in ABE-style block explorer, and the ability to do a VeriSend type of transaction (send BTC via UTC) and we're looking at something useful. At that point, if you can make all of those additions, is it better to fork from UTC or would it be best to just make a new coin? Or does the market really just want some of these features for an existing coin that is already well regarded (BTC, LTC, etc.)?

The coming alt-coin apocalypse is going to be messy, and I'd guess that less than 10% of alt-coins will really be doing anything worthwhile in another year -- and maybe even 5%. It's like a business that expands too rapidly and suddenly has 3000 retail locations, and then they realize they're not getting enough customers at each location and so a few years later they file for bankruptcy and close most of the stores. Cryptocurrencies have done basically that right now, and while not all of the coins were created in such a way as to be deemed "junk copies", there will be some "good" coins that die along with the "bad".

The coming alt-coin apocalypse is going to be messy, and I'd guess that less than 10% of alt-coins will really be doing anything worthwhile in another year -- and maybe even 5%. It's like a business that expands too rapidly and suddenly has 3000 retail locations, and then they realize they're not getting enough customers at each location and so a few years later they file for bankruptcy and close most of the stores. Cryptocurrencies have done basically that right now, and while not all of the coins were created in such a way as to be deemed "junk copies", there will be some "good" coins that die along with the "bad".

so  you should ask yourself what feature do this coin have,and what make this coin different,and what feature  of this coin can make it survive

[mizultra]

Okay, so the owner of the biggest pool for UTC back in the early days helped start CAI (with several other pool operators, though I'm not sure if any were related to UTC). Unfortunately, the editing and deleting of old posts makes it difficult to "check and investigate better". Stuhlman probably had a bunch of UTC, and he probably cashed out a long time ago as well. Such is life. But changing to 100% PoS is no panacea -- it just makes things messy and ultimately I don't think it's likely to do much other than allow all the GPU miners to quit supporting Ultra. That's fine I suppose -- let all the big bag holders continue to hold and try to figure out ways to get people to invest in UTC. But if you're trying to tell anyone that investing in UTC now is a good idea, I've got some beach front property in CA that I'll sell you for pennies on the dollar as well!

You have some great insight, trogdorjw73. People should listen to you if they want 'smart' investors.

I don't understand your disdain with Scrypt-Jane (more appropriately named scrypt-chacha). I agree on the point you made about the NFactors scaling way too quickly at the beginning and killing momentum from initial investment. But isn't it good now with the NFactor changes far between (I'm thinking more yacoin of course)? I think around 1 year between NFactor changes would be more ideal although I admit pretty arbitrary. VertCoin (4 year between each NFactor change) is apparently going to get hit with ASICs, and I for one can't stand those scammy companies.

I also wouldn't overlook the hybrid POW/POS. I mean as the volume of coins increases over time, the percentage of coins created by POS increases over POW. You become an almost POS only coin when 95% of the coins that enter circulation each day come from POS. I'm too lazy right now to calculate when that would happen, but you get my point.

Scrypt-Jane was a specific implementation of Scrypt-Chacha with pre-programmed N-Factor changes, and fundamentally my problem is that they were poorly chosen. Now we're at the point where things are slowing down, but it's also "too difficult" to get miners up and running, so only those that got in early are still worried about mining UTC. Really, can you imagine anyone new to the cryptocurrency scene saying, "Oh, look at UTC -- I wonder how I can get set up to mine at NF-13?" They can do Scrypt, X11, X13, etc. and mine any of a couple hundred coins, whereas Scrypt-Jane requires tweaking parameters for just one coin (or at least on N-Factor). It's a major pain in the butt! Scrypt-N is practically the same algorithm but with NF changes more widely spaced; in January the first Scrypt-N coin will move to NF-11, and most of the difficulties with that N-Factor are now known; the next change will be in another year or more, so SJ gets to pave the way with little reward for doing so.

The ironic thing is that all of this was done to "protect us from the evil ASICs", and yet I'm not even convinced ASICs are the real enemy here. This has become a big business, and that means the small fries (you, me, and anyone else that can't invest millions of dollars) are probably just lucky to have gotten in early enough to have made some good earnings. I don't think we'll actually see a fully functional Scrypt-N ASIC in a time frame that will be profitable for the buyers, but the manufacturers of the ASIC will still make money -- or just scam people and disappear with the coins they're paid. But how do you stop that from happening? Government oversight, laws, regulations, etc. are all things that BTC was trying to avoid early on, yet now we're trending more and more towards having all of them. Oops.

As far as PoS goes, it was basically designed as a way to reduce power requirements while keeping the network secure from a 51% attack, and it does well in that regard. The problem is that it doesn't encourage use of a coin, and there are all sorts of weird things that go on with PoS coins like scaling of the interest rates, or poor coding (cloning of a poorly coded implementation), etc. The rewards are also terribly stingy on many coins (Blackcoin), so if the idea is to have people leave the wallet running 24/7 to support the network, there needs to be a real incentive to do so. This fad that started with BC where it's somehow better to distribute all of the coins in a one week period and then shift to PoS strikes me as a huge money grab as well. At least UTC would have been around for a long time before making the switch, but of course it's going to require a hard fork again and people will get upset about fundamental changes to the design of UTC.

Really, in retrospect (yes, I know: hindsight is always 20/20), UTC was not designed properly. I can say the same of many coins, including BTC and LTC, but what's done is done. Block reward halving is convenient in terms of knowing the block reward for long periods of time, and it doesn't necessarily reward the first miners with the most coins, but slowly scaling down (e.g. sort of like DRK, though it could still be improved) seems better. Fast NF adjustments -- ever -- is just chaotic. As someone that mined a bunch of the SJ coins when they were new, almost every NF change would cause issues on every mining PC I have. The power efficiency issue is also real -- I have given up on Scrypt-N and anything else above NF-10 for that reason, and of course vanilla Scrypt is now in the domain of the Scrypt ASICs. And as for the block times... they're just too short, as I noted already.

So given all of the above, what's the "ideal" new coin? First and foremost, it has to bring something new. If you clone an existing coin and just tweak the parameters a bit and create a new image and name, you've created a coin that's basically just a money grab from the developers (and to an extent the whole cryptocurrency community). You need at least some sort of major new feature. For example, stuff like a built-in exchange system in the wallet would be useful, or at least a way to check the current prices; Stealth Transaction type features are also useful. Most other "additions" are just fooling around trying to pretend to be different. I don't think in-wallet games are useful, as that's just a time sink and people have lives they need to live (e.g. you can't have five different wallets with games running and expect a person to play/mine/whatever all of them at the same time).

If UTC is going to hard fork to PoS, they ought to look at some other fundamental changes. The coin went from what -- 6 seconds to 20 seconds to 30 seconds for the block times? 30 seconds might be okay now, but one minute still seems more reasonable to me, especially given PoS will be more consistent. Now add in something like Stealth Transactions (similar to the new VTC), and a built-in ABE-style block explorer, and the ability to do a VeriSend type of transaction (send BTC via UTC) and we're looking at something useful. At that point, if you can make all of those additions, is it better to fork from UTC or would it be best to just make a new coin? Or does the market really just want some of these features for an existing coin that is already well regarded (BTC, LTC, etc.)?

The coming alt-coin apocalypse is going to be messy, and I'd guess that less than 10% of alt-coins will really be doing anything worthwhile in another year -- and maybe even 5%. It's like a business that expands too rapidly and suddenly has 3000 retail locations, and then they realize they're not getting enough customers at each location and so a few years later they file for bankruptcy and close most of the stores. Cryptocurrencies have done basically that right now, and while not all of the coins were created in such a way as to be deemed "junk copies", there will be some "good" coins that die along with the "bad".

+10

Thanks for adding something constructive to the conversation.I completely agree, in that simply forking UTC to POS isn't going to do anything, but adding something of real value, Stealth Transactions, ABE-style block explorer, VeriSend etc. as you suggested makes a lot more sense. I mean if we're going to fork UTC fucking fork it into coin nirvana with shiny new goodies and relaunch it as the "New Fortified" version of UTC. I'd rather put of Dev funds for that than waste time debating how to avoid killing it. Let's be creative here and make UTC competitive with the top performers.

I really like this direction..it actually has potential.

[Marnie1976]

Can we all just focus on the progression of UTC instead of fights on this thread, i must say iam getting pretty tired of it..

Fact is that the decision is made to go full POS and it seems it cant be changed anymore.. 

If anyone thinks that it isnt going to work, fine, there are plenty of other coins to concentrate on..

Why come here and spread fud and false accusations..

+100

[mizultra]

Can we all just focus on the progression of UTC instead of fights on this thread, i must say iam getting pretty tired of it..

Fact is that the decision is made to go full POS and it seems it cant be changed anymore.. 

If anyone thinks that it isnt going to work, fine, there are plenty of other coins to concentrate on..

Why come here and spread fud and false accusations..

+100

@ Marnie1976

So put aside the idea that the decision to go full POS can't be unchanged for sec. Just for a sec.... What do you think about forking UTC to build in new updated features as described by trogdorjw73. We could do both really, The Devs could add some new features and we could do a soft-relaunch and if doesn't help we can still go full POS if it benefits the coin.

UTC is still a solid coin, but there seems like a lot more negative attitudes towards going to full POS, than doing zero. I'm not trying to be difficult but personally I like the idea of UTC being innovative and breathing enough new features into UTC that it puts it back on the map.

[bret]

Can we all just focus on the progression of UTC instead of fights on this thread, i must say iam getting pretty tired of it..

Fact is that the decision is made to go full POS and it seems it cant be changed anymore.. 

If anyone thinks that it isnt going to work, fine, there are plenty of other coins to concentrate on..

Why come here and spread fud and false accusations..

+100

Ok so shun the community that everyone keeps saying that the coin and it's success will be built on. Nevermind many of us have been here since the very beginning. Nevermind we have put OUR resources into this coin, nevermind that we have supported, talked about, and marketed this coin on our own. Nevermind everything the community has done, this is a dictatorship and if you don't like the decisions made behind closed doors, get out?!?

Great message you guys are sending to anyone looking to get into this coin. The devs shouldn't be asking for the community support when they have no interest in supporting the community. It's a two way street and a major decision like going full POS (which is a terrible idea) should be discussed in an open forum for all to debate.

Is there even a shred of evidence that going full POS will be beneficial? Who is this supported by besides some "consulted experts". If they are experts why do they need to be so anonymous? If they have such credibility they should stand by it and their consultation to go full POS. Without names they might as well not exist.

The whole notion that simply limiting somehow forces a rise in value is a joke. There are tons of coins out there that have less coins created daily than are sold daily and they are hardly on some sort of magic carpet ride of continuous rise in value.

All this looks like to me is a way to get one final significant pump so that people can get their coins out before values drops another 10 fold.

[Levole11]

Can we all just focus on the progression of UTC instead of fights on this thread, i must say iam getting pretty tired of it..

Fact is that the decision is made to go full POS and it seems it cant be changed anymore.. 

If anyone thinks that it isnt going to work, fine, there are plenty of other coins to concentrate on..

Why come here and spread fud and false accusations..

+100

Ok so shun the community that everyone keeps saying that the coin and it's success will be built on. Nevermind many of us have been here since the very beginning. Nevermind we have put OUR resources into this coin, nevermind that we have supported, talked about, and marketed this coin on our own. Nevermind everything the community has done, this is a dictatorship and if you don't like the decisions made behind closed doors, get out?!?

Great message you guys are sending to anyone looking to get into this coin. The devs shouldn't be asking for the community support when they have no interest in supporting the community. It's a two way street and a major decision like going full POS (which is a terrible idea) should be discussed in an open forum for all to debate.

Is there even a shred of evidence that going full POS will be beneficial? Who is this supported by besides some "consulted experts". If they are experts why do they need to be so anonymous? If they have such credibility they should stand by it and their consultation to go full POS. Without names they might as well not exist.

The whole notion that simply limiting somehow forces a rise in value is a joke. There are tons of coins out there that have less coins created daily than are sold daily and they are hardly on some sort of magic carpet ride of continuous rise in value.

All this looks like to me is a way to get one final significant pump so that people can get their coins out before values drops another 10 fold.

Bret i wasnt talking about you when i made the comment that there are other coins to support.. There have been quite some false accusations made here, like that the devs were involved in Caishen, that Paul is bumface his 'mate' etc.. the fights between richard en flobdeth, does that do a coin any good you think?

I have nothing against constructive, oppositionary posts, like yours and others in the last page(s).. But there a lot of posters here who oppose the devs and their plans with such a tone, that, even if they are right, it damages the coin as well..

Iam also invested in this coin and i want it to succeed just like you.. But is not going to be if there's not going to be constructional talks. In that light, it would be, i say it again, nice if the devs would join the discussion, havent seen them for a few days here.. ?

[amartinz]

There is some kind of error with UTC on CoinMarketCap...

[Beave162]

Scrypt-Jane was a specific implementation of Scrypt-Chacha with pre-programmed N-Factor changes, and fundamentally my problem is that they were poorly chosen. Now we're at the point where things are slowing down, but it's also "too difficult" to get miners up and running, so only those that got in early are still worried about mining UTC. Really, can you imagine anyone new to the cryptocurrency scene saying, "Oh, look at UTC -- I wonder how I can get set up to mine at NF-13?" They can do Scrypt, X11, X13, etc. and mine any of a couple hundred coins, whereas Scrypt-Jane requires tweaking parameters for just one coin (or at least on N-Factor). It's a major pain in the butt! Scrypt-N is practically the same algorithm but with NF changes more widely spaced; in January the first Scrypt-N coin will move to NF-11, and most of the difficulties with that N-Factor are now known; the next change will be in another year or more, so SJ gets to pave the way with little reward for doing so.

I have VERY limited knowledge in the realm of coding. But from what I understand, Scrypt-Jane is a software library and Scrypt-Chacha is a mixing algorithm: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=206577.msg2332885#msg2332885.

You say tweaking the parameters is a "pain in the butt," but I would rather tweak parameters than have to drop thousands on an ASIC just to be profitable. Oh, and when that ASIC is no longer profitable, I have to sell it at the right time because it eventually just becomes an inefficient space heater. Now you are saying Scrypt-N is fine because the scrypt-chacha coins 'paved the way' by showing some people how to tweak their parameters? BTW people will definitely wonder how to mine UTC if it is the most profitable for their GPUs as with anything else. Go to the cudaminer thread... when the 750ti came out, tons of people were mining YACoin because it.was.the.most.profitable. I agree the start of the NFactor schedule was painful but that has passed and the changes are spaced out now and CPUs with high cache are relatively profitable--at least with YAC.

The ironic thing is that all of this was done to "protect us from the evil ASICs", and yet I'm not even convinced ASICs are the real enemy here. This has become a big business, and that means the small fries (you, me, and anyone else that can't invest millions of dollars) are probably just lucky to have gotten in early enough to have made some good earnings. I don't think we'll actually see a fully functional Scrypt-N ASIC in a time frame that will be profitable for the buyers, but the manufacturers of the ASIC will still make money -- or just scam people and disappear with the coins they're paid. But how do you stop that from happening? Government oversight, laws, regulations, etc. are all things that BTC was trying to avoid early on, yet now we're trending more and more towards having all of them. Oops.

I personally would be ok with ASICs if basically all of the companies didn't screw people with empty promises. ASICs, in a way, are a sign of success for a coin. But I think the most successful coin long-term (very) must have one of the best perceptions of being fairly distributed among the most people. Scrypt-Chacha coins are currently the most poised to earn that perception over time, even though the marketcaps currently do not even compare to other algos. YBCoin is the highest chacha coin btw at #26 ($1.5 million).

The power efficiency issue is also real -- I have given up on Scrypt-N and anything else above NF-10 for that reason

What is this power efficiency issue? Scrypt-Chacha uses LESS power as the NFactor increases as I measured myself and posted on this very thread. Do I need to post pictures of my measurements? (serious question)

In regards to reducing the block reward AGAIN or changing to POS, I will quote the guy who created both PeerCoin and PrimeCoin:

Inflation model cannot be changed or market will lose confidence in the currency. It doesn't matter that a majority agree with the change or not. Market often disagrees with majority opinion.

Even just smoothing the sudden drop would be a dangerous exercise as that opens a precedence that inflation model is changeable.

[fredeq]

I am not sure when you want to go full PoS but think about getting back at bittrex. They may agree to add UTC in the light of new info.

[tsjaar]

So block 450.000 is gonna be the last block before POS gets in?

Current block: 441900
8100 blocks to go
~ 2 blocks per minute (?)
4050 minutes
67 hour
2,8 days from now...??

So about 3 days before UTC will rock again?

When will the asics arrive in Holland?

When will V2 crypto-trade be ready? 

Current block: 444698
5302 blocks to go
~ 2 blocks per minute
2651 minutes
44 hour
1,8 days from now...??

Who will win the word cup? Germany or Holland?   

[mdtspain]

So block 450.000 is gonna be the last block before POS gets in?

Current block: 441900
8100 blocks to go
~ 2 blocks per minute (?)
4050 minutes
67 hour
2,8 days from now...??

So about 3 days before UTC will rock again?

When will the asics arrive in Holland?

When will V2 crypto-trade be ready?  

First we gonna win the world championship soccer.....then the rest will follow

Well, could be. Actually, you have the easier opponent (Argentina, right?). We have to beat Brazil, the host himself, today. Won't be easy, but if we manage to, we'll meet in the finals

Hmmm....that was not easy?

Today Holland will have his revanch for the stolen World Cup of 1978 Argentina - The Netherlands played in Argentina.

On sunday the revanch for the stolen World Cup from 1974 Germany - The Netherlands played in Germany.

[atanas2d]

Hello guys,

I have a rig with 4 x 280x, 4gb RAM and latest AMD drivers 14.6 rc. Every settings I tried gave me only HW.

Is it possible to mine UltraCoin with this machine or I should buy more RAM? Or may be I should install some old drivers?

Thanks for the help.

[mdtspain]

Hello guys,

I have a rig with 4 x 280x, 4gb RAM and latest AMD drivers 14.6 rc. Every settings I tried gave me only HW.

Is it possible to mine UltraCoin with this machine or I should buy more RAM? Or may be I should install some old drivers?

Thanks for the help.

No problem....should work

[primouno]

Hello guys,

I have a rig with 4 x 280x, 4gb RAM and latest AMD drivers 14.6 rc. Every settings I tried gave me only HW.

Is it possible to mine UltraCoin with this machine or I should buy more RAM? Or may be I should install some old drivers?

Thanks for the help.

Hello
No it is not possible with this drivers. You need to downgrade to 13.12.

Then you may mine UTC directly or you can try mining at multipool ( http://www.cryptotrain.net/ ) using this guide: http://ultracointalk.org/index.php?topic=136.0

Great to have new miners here

[atanas2d]

Hello guys,

I have a rig with 4 x 280x, 4gb RAM and latest AMD drivers 14.6 rc. Every settings I tried gave me only HW.

Is it possible to mine UltraCoin with this machine or I should buy more RAM? Or may be I should install some old drivers?

Thanks for the help.

Hello
No it is not possible with this drivers. You need to downgrade to 13.12.

Then you may mine UTC directly or you can try mining at multipool ( http://www.cryptotrain.net/ ) using this guide: http://ultracointalk.org/index.php?topic=136.0

Great to have new miners here

Thanks!

As far as I'm downgrading to 13.12 I would prefer directly UTC mining. So the UTC mining has nothing to do with my 4gb of RAM... it's perfectly enough?