[POT]PotCoin - Banking for the Legal Cannabis Industry ✦ ✦ ✦Grow With Us ✦ ✦ ✦

[rdyoung]

If anyone here is interested, I am working out the logistics of a "supernet" for weed coins. Its currently on the drawing board, meaning I am still on the design stage, any help or suggestions would be welcome. My thinking is that if instead of being passive and bitchy about any one coin or screaming that POT rules while DOPE drools, etc, if we come together we can do more to promote adoption of crypto in general and the weed coins by the weed shops in particular.

I'm with rdyoung on this. We all have one goal in mind bringing crypto and cannabis together to help each other out.  We have been looing into 'supernet' of coins also and can help you out rdyoung as I believe we have someone who works inside the team there and have been 'told' by him that whatever feature they drum up there it can be ported into Dope , or some sort of thing like that.  But, yes agree with rdyoung.

If the responsible parties are all saying "we should be working together", why not consolidate all like-minded coins into one coin/blockchain?  I understand the pride of each coin would be at stake, but if the goal the same across these coins, why operate separately?  Why not form a conglomerate with a single coin for everyone to get behind?

-Fuse

Why consolidate them? I believe the point by the actual supernet is that each coin has unique features being tested on that coin, eventually other coins may want to integrate that code if/when it proves useful and popular. The other idea behind the supernet index/pool/whatever you want to call it is that they have a fund that arbitrages and trades those coins, they provide liquidity and price smoothing and pass those returns on to anyone actively staking BTCD. My thinking is to do something similar. Setup a fund that is split 50/50 between staking and arbitrage and pass those returns onto fund holders, the only question is how to pass it on and that would depend on how its setup and how many individual investors are involved.

I also pose the following question. Why does general mills have 100 varieties of cereal? In essence they all contain the same ingredients, so why have that many for consumers to choose from?

[dopecoindude]

If anyone here is interested, I am working out the logistics of a "supernet" for weed coins. Its currently on the drawing board, meaning I am still on the design stage, any help or suggestions would be welcome. My thinking is that if instead of being passive and bitchy about any one coin or screaming that POT rules while DOPE drools, etc, if we come together we can do more to promote adoption of crypto in general and the weed coins by the weed shops in particular.

I'm with rdyoung on this. We all have one goal in mind bringing crypto and cannabis together to help each other out.  We have been looing into 'supernet' of coins also and can help you out rdyoung as I believe we have someone who works inside the team there and have been 'told' by him that whatever feature they drum up there it can be ported into Dope , or some sort of thing like that.  But, yes agree with rdyoung.

If the responsible parties are all saying "we should be working together", why not consolidate all like-minded coins into one coin/blockchain?  I understand the pride of each coin would be at stake, but if the goal the same across these coins, why operate separately?  Why not form a conglomerate with a single coin for everyone to get behind?

-Fuse

Funny you should say that Fuse as this was brought up on our thread also:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=467641.msg12596140#msg12596140

I think its not a bad idea and its just a matter of putting ego's aside. I think I saw somewhere you add up all the marketcap of 'weed coins' and it puts us in the top 10.

[rdyoung]

If anyone here is interested, I am working out the logistics of a "supernet" for weed coins. Its currently on the drawing board, meaning I am still on the design stage, any help or suggestions would be welcome. My thinking is that if instead of being passive and bitchy about any one coin or screaming that POT rules while DOPE drools, etc, if we come together we can do more to promote adoption of crypto in general and the weed coins by the weed shops in particular.

I'm with rdyoung on this. We all have one goal in mind bringing crypto and cannabis together to help each other out.  We have been looing into 'supernet' of coins also and can help you out rdyoung as I believe we have someone who works inside the team there and have been 'told' by him that whatever feature they drum up there it can be ported into Dope , or some sort of thing like that.  But, yes agree with rdyoung.

If the responsible parties are all saying "we should be working together", why not consolidate all like-minded coins into one coin/blockchain?  I understand the pride of each coin would be at stake, but if the goal the same across these coins, why operate separately?  Why not form a conglomerate with a single coin for everyone to get behind?

-Fuse

Funny you should say that Fuse as this was brought up on our thread also:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=467641.msg12596140#msg12596140

I think its not a bad idea and its just a matter of putting ego's aside. I think I saw somewhere you add up all the marketcap of 'weed coins' and it puts us in the top 10.

IMO there is no need to consolidate them unless its decided that there should be only one weed coin. Who makes that decision? No clue.
I do agree that the idea for a weedcoin multi wallet is a good one, possibly get the coinomi people on it and brand it as such. No need for the destruction IMO, coinomi has integrated shapeshift for the coins it supports, so someone from the weed coins would need to work towards getting shapeshift support.

[ny2cafuse]

Funny you should say that Fuse as this was brought up on our thread also:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=467641.msg12596140#msg12596140

I think its not a bad idea and its just a matter of putting ego's aside. I think I saw somewhere you add up all the marketcap of 'weed coins' and it puts us in the top 10.

IMO there is no need to consolidate them unless its decided that there should be only one weed coin. Who makes that decision? No clue.
I do agree that the idea for a weedcoin multi wallet is a good one, possibly get the coinomi people on it and brand it as such. No need for the destruction IMO, coinomi has integrated shapeshift for the coins it supports, so someone from the weed coins would need to work towards getting shapeshift support.

The people make that decision.  The fact that I'm not the only one at this point asking that question makes me think that I'm not crazy with this idea.

The only reason you seem to put forth as to why they should stay separate is for making money in arbitrage.  You keep going back to the financials of this coin, and not the community use and unification.  Putting up walls around the communities will create disparities in the success of the coins.  Unifying the coins brings the communities together and, in turn, each coin's resources and available uses.  It shows how the individual coins are coming together to be a serious solution for the industry instead of being niche solutions for their respective communities.  "My coin is better than your coin" egos aside, isn't that what everyone wants?

Even you talk about keeping the talk of the coins focused towards the common goal of being recognized as a serious and well thought out solution.  But in a sense, you're saying the states should have kept their individual monetary systems instead of adopting the national currency of the dollar because you could make money in the exchange.  You've got to have a better reason than that.

If you want to create a "supernet" of MMJ coins and services, start unifying some of that into single systems... not a conglomerate of separate systems.

That's just my thoughts.

-Fuse

[rdyoung]

Funny you should say that Fuse as this was brought up on our thread also:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=467641.msg12596140#msg12596140

I think its not a bad idea and its just a matter of putting ego's aside. I think I saw somewhere you add up all the marketcap of 'weed coins' and it puts us in the top 10.

IMO there is no need to consolidate them unless its decided that there should be only one weed coin. Who makes that decision? No clue.
I do agree that the idea for a weedcoin multi wallet is a good one, possibly get the coinomi people on it and brand it as such. No need for the destruction IMO, coinomi has integrated shapeshift for the coins it supports, so someone from the weed coins would need to work towards getting shapeshift support.

The people make that decision.  The fact that I'm not the only one at this point asking that question makes me think that I'm not crazy with this idea.

The only reason you seem to put forth as to why they should stay separate is for making money in arbitrage.  You keep going back to the financials of this coin, and not the community use and unification.  Putting up walls around the communities will create disparities in the success of the coins.  Unifying the coins brings the communities together and, in turn, each coin's resources and available uses.  It shows how the individual coins are coming together to be a serious solution for the industry instead of being niche solutions for their respective communities.  "My coin is better than your coin" egos aside, isn't that what everyone wants?

Even you talk about keeping the talk of the coins focused towards the common goal of being recognized as a serious and well thought out solution.  But in a sense, you're saying the states should have kept their individual monetary systems instead of adopting the national currency of the dollar because you could make money in the exchange.  You've got to have a better reason than that.

If you want to create a "supernet" of MMJ coins and services, start unifying some of that into single systems... not a conglomerate of separate systems.

That's just my thoughts.

-Fuse

We don't disagree on consolidation and unification of ideas and resources. However consolidation of ALL weedcoins into 1 larger mega coin to me is not needed.
As I tried to elude to with the question about General Mills and the 100+ varieties of cereal with the same basic ingredients, its about marketing and market share. Giving people a choice of coins will bring greater adoption and community support/action than bundling them all up under one banner/blockchain. Not to mention that consolidation and destruction of all current weedcoins doesn't preclude someone or multiple someones from launching new coins. What do we with those? Bring them into the fold as well? Who pays for that?

You seem to be all over the map with your analogies and understanding of my POV and statements regarding inflation, supply/demand, etc.
By your states versus federal dollar logic, ALL altcoins should be melded into BTC. Why have alternative blockchains who are testing the limits of what crypto is and can be? Why have alternative coins to test new code and features? Why not just abolish all alts and issue BTC for their destruction?

IMO having a weedcoin super group is a better and more prudent option than creating one blockchain to rule them all. Which coin do we use for this new chain? And who pays for the coins used for the conversion? Do we do a premine for a brand new coin? How long do we give people to turn in their other coins for this new world currency? How do we price the conversion?
You expect the "people" to decide that? The "people" can't even decide on whether or not to raise the blocksize for BTC, the "people" can barely decide who their leaders should be.  Your mistaken to think that my argument against consolidation into 1 chain is about arbitrage, its NOT and I never said it was. The reason as I stated above was about choice, you get more sales by offering the illusion of choice than by offering only 1 option.

As I also said and you ignored, the multi coin wallet is a good idea. I will repeat, maybe we can bring coinomi in on it. Having HD support for every crypto possible is better than dealing with 1 off or brainwallet generated addresses. Its also clear that your either not grasping what I am proposing or your ignoring it because your having a hard time wrapping your head around it.
What I am proposing is to do exactly what your saying I am not, to bring the communities and devs of the various weedcoins together, possibly in one place, a new forum or a slack channel, whatever works. By bringing together and unifying resources we can maximize the effect of any outreach and onboarding attempts we make for crypto in general and weedcoins in particular.
I am also mulling over the idea of launching an asset to invest in various coins as I have also posted. Split the investments 50/50 between trading and staking, this will do 2 things, it will provide support for the networks by having coins online to stake and any profits brought in from the arbitrage or HFT if HFT is applied in some capacity and can be used to accumulate more of the underlying coins providing consistent buy support to stabilize the coins and give them some upward momentum.

[ny2cafuse]

I know you dislike when I break down my replies to individual points, but like I've said before, it helps for clarity so it's easier for you to dismiss what I'm saying.  Besides, I find it funny when you don't read it and come back with another argument.

We don't disagree on consolidation and unification of ideas and resources. However consolidation of ALL weedcoins into 1 larger mega coin to me is not needed.
As I tried to elude to with the question about General Mills and the 100+ varieties of cereal with the same basic ingredients, its about marketing and market share. Giving people a choice of coins will bring greater adoption and community support/action than bundling them all up under one banner/blockchain. Not to mention that consolidation and destruction of all current weedcoins doesn't preclude someone or multiple someones from launching new coins. What do we with those? Bring them into the fold as well? Who pays for that?

Do you really think anyone is going to start another MMJ coin if one coin holds the majority of the market's support?  That's an uphill battle that is pointless.  The only reason there are so many MMJ coins right now is because they all started in the span of a couple months trying to be "the coin".  With regards to marketing, if there is one serious coin that had the backing of all communities, I would think marketing the coin would be a lot easier than it's proven to be.

You seem to be all over the map with your analogies and understanding of my POV and statements regarding inflation, supply/demand, etc.
By your states versus federal dollar logic, ALL altcoins should be melded into BTC. Why have alternative blockchains who are testing the limits of what crypto is and can be? Why have alternative coins to test new code and features? Why not just abolish all alts and issue BTC for their destruction?

Its pretty ironic when you talk about me be all over the map.  You go from financials to testnets in the span of 2 sentances.

BTC should be BTC.  Earthcoin should be Earthcoin.  Hell... Tittycoin should be Tittycoin.  And so on and so on.  But we don't need to divide the community among 7(?) different MMJ coins.  Also, you don't need alternative coins to test features.  You can do that with a testnet or a private live network.  It's pretty common with devs to do this.  Not sure if you were aware of that.

IMO having a weedcoin super group is a better and more prudent option than creating one blockchain to rule them all. Which coin do we use for this new chain? And who pays for the coins used for the conversion? Do we do a premine for a brand new coin? How long do we give people to turn in their other coins for this new world currency? How do we price the conversion?
You expect the "people" to decide that? The "people" can't even decide on whether or not to raise the blocksize for BTC, the "people" can barely decide who their leaders should be.  Your mistaken to think that my argument against consolidation into 1 chain is about arbitrage, its NOT and I never said it was. The reason as I stated above was about choice, you get more sales by offering the illusion of choice than by offering only 1 option.

The only reason you gave besides using other coins as a testnet was arbitrage:

Why consolidate them? I believe the point by the actual supernet is that each coin has unique features being tested on that coin, eventually other coins may want to integrate that code if/when it proves useful and popular. The other idea behind the supernet index/pool/whatever you want to call it is that they have a fund that arbitrages and trades those coins, they provide liquidity and price smoothing and pass those returns on to anyone actively staking BTCD. My thinking is to do something similar. Setup a fund that is split 50/50 between staking and arbitrage and pass those returns onto fund holders, the only question is how to pass it on and that would depend on how its setup and how many individual investors are involved.

For someone who is so involved in this community, you hold a really diminished view of what people here are possible of accomplishing.  If members and leaders from each community came together to form one organization that worked together to hash out a plan, it would come together pretty quick.  Specifics on destruction and exchange could be hashed out pretty fast.  I've worked with people in the past that have done this with other coins and have offered their help with facilitating the logistical processes that are needed.  It's not that big of a deal if the community really wanted to come together.  It's happened before elsewhere.

As I also said and you ignored, the multi coin wallet is a good idea. I will repeat, maybe we can bring coinomi in on it. Having HD support for every crypto possible is better than dealing with 1 off or brainwallet generated addresses. Its also clear that your either not grasping what I am proposing or your ignoring it because your having a hard time wrapping your head around it.
What I am proposing is to do exactly what your saying I am not, to bring the communities and devs of the various weedcoins together, possibly in one place, a new forum or a slack channel, whatever works. By bringing together and unifying resources we can maximize the effect of any outreach and onboarding attempts we make for crypto in general and weedcoins in particular.
I am also mulling over the idea of launching an asset to invest in various coins as I have also posted. Split the investments 50/50 between trading and staking, this will do 2 things, it will provide support for the networks by having coins online to stake and any profits brought in from the arbitrage or HFT if HFT is applied in some capacity and can be used to accumulate more of the underlying coins providing consistent buy support to stabilize the coins and give them some upward momentum.

Again... arbitrage.  But you didn't say anything about that, right?

I get what you're saying.  You keep focusing on the financials and not the technology.  Multiple blockchains is a mess at best.  Bringing them together in one wallet isn't going to accomplish anything.  People are still going to need to decide which coin to put their resources behind(read mining and blockchain services).  Unless your wallet is going to exchange the coins for one coin that all merchants take, you're still talking about acceptance of the individual coins.  And if it does exchange them into something like BTC, than that's going back to your argument against my proposal for a unified coin.  In the end, the marketing focus needs to be unified.  This is just easier and more logical with one blockchain.  It just seems like your answers to problems are always driven by your desire to make a buck with some service that you control.  You can't always buy your way into a solution, mate.

It gets really old coming to this thread to discuss things if all you're going to do is argue with people about how stupid they are compared to you.  You're off-putting, mate.  Not every discussion is an attack on your beliefs, and your beliefs don't always outweigh others.  You might take that into consideration if you want to be taken seriously.  There's a reason you're the only one ever really talking in this thread.  Think about that.

I'm heading to bed now... don't wait up waiting on another response.

-Fuse

[barabbas]

As usual, besides being a FACT, the price is ALSO a SYMPTOM. It is by now very CLEAR that the ILLNESS is the clear lack of EXECUTION. Not to mention DIRECTION. In other words: POT is going nowhere... but down.

Remember the ROADMAP? OK, check it again here: http://www.potcoinjoint.com/forum/potcoin/press-news/3307-potcoin-development-roadmap

We have morons among us. A clusterfuck of them at that.

I'm sure nothing is being worked on. Awhile ago we started talking about point of sale for the coin and all I heard was crickets from anybody in the development team.

I've seen nothing of note for awhile other than the algorithm switch. The drop in price was from 2 large selloffs on Cryptsy about a day apart. Probably some people who logged on to sell off coins and withdraw after reading the recent stuff about Cryptsy.

Exactly this....
If anyone needs proof of this, look at the orderbook for POT on cryptsy and compare it to the other exchanges. I haven't checked other coins in depth, but I bet its the same for any of the coins that are on 2 or all 3 of the exchanges.

The devs need to and should be more vocal, but its not just up to them. The community needs to shit or get off the pot. If your holding POT in the hopes that someone else will make you rich, good luck with that. We have plenty of talented people in this and other forums in all fields, programming, design, advertising/promo, etc. If you want the coin to succeed you need to do something to help it do so, if not, please sell your coins and move on or at the least, shut the hell up.

The other issue I see that is pervasive in the crypto community is the need for things to happen NOW. "We" gauge profitability for POW in terms of weeks or months versus years for other investments, this same mindset expects things to happen over night and for xyzcoin to go "to the moon" with no help from the community.
While I personally dislike the lack of proper grammar and full thoughts/sentences that is prevalent in the DOGE community, they are something to look to for what is needed for a coin to survive and potentially succeed. With the # of coins that DOGE has in circulation it should be priced at less than 1 satoshi by now, but the community is rabid and somehow keeps the price way above what I or an analyst would say its worth.

If anyone here is interested, I am working out the logistics of a "supernet" for weed coins. Its currently on the drawing board, meaning I am still on the design stage, any help or suggestions would be welcome. My thinking is that if instead of being passive and bitchy about any one coin or screaming that POT rules while DOPE drools, etc, if we come together we can do more to promote adoption of crypto in general and the weed coins by the weed shops in particular.

And this is, again, although perhaps well-intentioned, simply demagogic, absurdly complacent and full of mendacity. The Cryptsy issue may have have an influence in the price drop of late.... but POT's price has been dropping for months now from the 700s to the 200s now so the Cryptsy excuse is, again, absurd and disingenuous. At best.

As for the "culture of the NOW". this is crypto and people is patient only up to the point in which they see that the team in charge is openly straddling from the path they themselves  designed and advertised (as in the OP). There's no card, there's no massive promotion -there's none-, there's nothing of what they themselves designed and said it would be in full enforcement right now. And none of it iruth is that they have also run out of resources to implement their own ideas, even the freaking cards tech or code. So what's the supporter, the "community" to do? related, so there's no communication because they have run out of excuses long ago. So what's the supporter, the "community" to do? Contrary to your opinion and wishful thinking, nothing. ZERO. Because if the community were to do anything meaningful do you know who would be the MAIN beneficiary? That's right, POTLABS. The one that deserves less any support, much less success.

And no, people should be quite critical of this lack of follow thru in their or his own timeline. There's no excuse for that. And he/they need to be exposed and, if possible, substituted. This is a GREAT IDEA. And should be a great investment directed by the proper people and with a modicum of resources to made it at least somewhat known what the project offers. Current leadership has proven to have a remarkable ignorance and lack of resources to implement their own plan. No if, no buts, no more demagogy, no more wishful thinking and no more lies, ok?

It is also total crap the "explanations" you have provided regarding the mining. Truth is that it is giving the equivalent of roughly 3% instead of the 5-6% promised. And that has nothing whatsoever ts a mistake in the code. One more. And it has nothing to do with the network weight or age... These rank amateurs are the gang that couldn't shoot straight. On anything.

As for your idea, call it what it is, not a "supernet" equivalent. The other cannabis coins are more or less exactly similar to POT. None brings anything distinctive to the table, therefore it would be a "grouping" or "consolidation" of several similar coins, not a "supernet". The Supernet is a group of coin projects each of which bring different and very distinct features to the supernet table ... again, nothing whatsoever to do with what you propose, which may or may not be positive or even viable, but it is definitely not anything that, on aggregate, bring any m ore customers, awareness or anything really, to the current scene.
00, that is.
Your defense of this project, as an investment, at this point s quite ridiculous. As ridiculous as the pretense that people who is losing considerable amount of money in this disaster will either get out -at a considerable loss- or "at least shut the fuck up". Ain't gonna happen... unless you are willing to buy my stash at 700, that is.

Oh, and just for you to know, your absurd defense and pseudo positiveness? It is a NEGATIVE altogether at this stage of the game. Because, in spite of your aforementioned "good intentions", after a couple of posts you just sound like a second hand car salesman.

Yes, the drop in POT has been pending for awhile, any 3year old can look at a chart at see that its now back testing its lows, but if you don't or can't see that people pulling funds out of cryptsys order book and selling off POT and other coins to cash out BTC contributed 90% to the price drop, your not worth conversing with.
As for what I termed "supernet" for lack of better wording. Do you have anything positive to say or contribute? Or are you just here to be an asshole and neg on anything and everything? If you don't think that bringing people together both devs and community will be a positive for adoption of crypto and weed coins in particular, I feel sorry for you and whoever you work with and for, you clearly have nothing worthwhile to bring to a team.

I am not defensive about this or any other project. What I am is optimistic and positive that crypto and niche coins like this one can and will succeed if people try. Think about it, this coin is named POTcoin, there isn't a better named coin among the weedcoins. Its simple and aptly named. The current devs made a smart move IMO to POSv2.0, locking in the inflation rate and giving people a reason and incentive to support the coin. Now we need a small bit of advertising and promo push to remind people the coin exists and that its not POSv. If you live in a state or country that is "weed friendly" do some evangelizing and talk to people about potcoin and crypto in general. Help get a dispensary setup to take crypto from customers, let them know that you have crypto to spend and would gladly do so if they took it. Get them setup with coinpayments to turn that potcoin into USD/EUR/etc if they need to.

The fact that you don't understand my explanation for why the current stake rate is what it is tells me everything. It is the coin age that determines how much is staked as interest in 2.0.
Because of the low difficulty, because of the low # of inputs trying to stake, everyone with a large enough input is staking very soon after the 720block or 8hour maturity window. The coin age accelerates over the first 2 weeks, if you stake soon after the 8hour window those inputs don't have enough time to gain age and with it an increased rate.
Tests by redrhino, myself and others here have proven that fact. It might be a mistake that laudney left out compensation for quick stake times, but that is understandable, he wasn't writing code for others, he was creating the code that he intended to rollout to a POS network that is much larger than POT is now and the stake rate wouldn't have been lower for RDD, it would have been spot on due its current size. Also as I have posted multiple times in multiple forums, laudney created POSv for Reddcoin he also coded it in such a way that it needs to be tailored to the coin its being integrated with, IE you can't simply copy/paste it and have it just work. In other words, while he did release it as open source, he didn't write the code for others, he wrote it specifically for RDD.


As I said in my "used car sales pitch". Its time for the crypto community as a whole to shit or get off the pot. Cryptos success or failure is all up to the community, its not going to magically succeed while everyone sits on their thumbs.

I apologize to myself and everyone for taking you off my ignore list and the waste of time and resources it caused. You are back on that list so don't bother responding unless you wish to waste your time.

I am so glad this guy has me on ignore because that way I won't feel too remorseful about exposing his stupid demagoggery... and Sarah Palin-esque examples. I mean, he just thinks the most stupid things and post them trying to convince himself that they can apply to defend his already established stupid points. Here's the latest of MANY examples:

-- The "General Mills" pseudo-analogy. This is POT, ok? Only 2 reasons for it's existence... three if you want to be really, really ambitious in your scope: 1.-To be able to buy pot with a crypto currency, gaining a discount and some "cost of living" appreciation. 2) Through that interest and growing adoption in consonance with the legalization/adoption of pot, to earn money/profits. And the stretched one: 3) to support and expand on the adoption of cryptocurrencies using POT as a short of Bitcoin for general acquisition purposes, again expecting adoption. There are no advantages in common use of POT against Bitcoin or ANY and all other 500+ alternatives, hence the "stretched" 3rd point. On with the "analogy"/Palinesque/mental diarrhea: A simple reading of the labels would show you the huge differences between all the products of General Mills, especially in ingredients. Number one. Number two, it doesn't have even remotely close o 50 such products, let alone 100. Number three: Each and every one of the product lines is not only market researched but targeted with surgical precision (and subsequent marketing campaigns worth millions of dollars), to address the demands of very specific and mostly different consumers: There are many -the vast majority- products that don't use cocoa. At all. But there are a few that are directed at the cocoa lovers, of course. A significant amount of their market. There are other which are  directed to adults looking to improve their fiber intake, so wheat is the ingredient of choice. And fruit. The reduction or substitutions of sugars is another main concern. Color attract kids. As do figures... the list goes on, and on, and on... POT, on the other hand, is ONLY ONE PRODUCT: pot. Weed. cannabis, use any other name it's all the same, market-wise, alright? So a so-called "supernet" of weed/pot/cannabis coin would be a conglomerate -what a word for such menial purpose- of logos and wishful-thinkers pretending each and every one to take advantage of the rest by getting a valuation in the conglomerate above their current market value, nothing else. But it won't bring any new features -none is needed-, no advancements of any kind -not the purpose of these projects- nothing positive under ANY AND ALL possible perspective. And what it would bring instead, massively, is a lot more mental diarrhea from the demagogues and car salesmen on each of the projects. Hot air. Sarah Palin. Stupidity running amok.

-- For months -many- Potlabs have been writing about the transition  to POSv. It doesn't work proper. It doesn't. I can't give less of a fuck if it is because you have to send coins to your wallet in batches of 5, 5,000 or 5 million. It should work. It is VERY EASY to code it to work. And it doesn't. Period. You get less the 3% interest. Do with it whatever the fuck you please.

-- More importantly, Ms. Palin, just not addressing the points don't work with me, alright? Potlabs posted in the OP a timeline. By now we should be having THE CARD, several promotions going, massive marketing... the works. Not only none of that has come to fruition, there's no more timeline. It's like, okay, you have the faulty code of the POSv implimentation -which I am just going to assume that has no security built-in whatsoever- and we are DONE. Up to you community now. You have to go and convince the dispensaries to accept a coin that if they don't convert immediately to fiat- at a higher than credit-card fees-, and I mean IMMEDIATELY, as in every second counts, it will FOR CERTAIN, be worth much less only a few hours later... take a look at the price "action" of the last several months... And you decide. But you guys can do it, come on, get up there and spell the beans, predicate the gospel of POT.

-- Finally (because this cannot be a bible, no matter how much raw material he provides), Ms Palin comes with another "brilliant" if not exactly innovative idea... mind you, he brands himself "a man of ideas": Lets do a faucet. Now that for sure would save this project... err... no, I am not going to indulge on unnecessary cruelty, no matter how forced it may be at this point. You all get the picture.  

[rdyoung]

@ny2cafuse

I am sorry that you can't handle multiple thoughts and ideas in the same post.
If you reread what I posted about supernet, that first mention of arbitrage was about them NOT a weed coin fund/group/cabal/etc.

You still haven't provided a coherent reason why we should merge them all into one coin to rule them all. I find it funny that instead of answering some of the questions I pose you waste time responding point on point about something I mentioned twice and in a different context than you interpreted it.

I won't reiterate my previous questions but consider this my last response TO YOU on this topic until you give a reasoned response to the multiple questions I posed that are at the core of doing what you want to do.

[Chronikka]

What is the purpose of this "supernet?" Is there any plan for a single consolidated wallet? Will a user be forced to transact in multiple currencies? Its hard enough getting people to accept a single cryptocurrency as viable how do you plan to sell them on a handful of currencies at the same time?

I don't understand how combining multiple coins into a "network" is going to serve any purpose. Its all just code. if you want a feature from another coin somebody just has to write it in (ahem...PoSv anyone?). A "supernet" will just confuse things and require a more robust development team to maintain it all. We barely have a development team capable of running a single coin let alone a network of them.

[ny2cafuse]

@ny2cafuse

I am sorry that you can't handle multiple thoughts and ideas in the same post.
If you reread what I posted about supernet, that first mention of arbitrage was about them NOT a weed coin fund/group/cabal/etc.

You still haven't provided a coherent reason why we should merge them all into one coin to rule them all. I find it funny that instead of answering some of the questions I pose you waste time responding point on point about something I mentioned twice and in a different context than you interpreted it.

I won't reiterate my previous questions but consider this my last response TO YOU on this topic until you give a reasoned response to the multiple questions I posed that are at the core of doing what you want to do.

I gave you multiple reasons in my post, but you failed to really read any of it.  You let your ego get in the way of taking the time to process the information.  I'm guessing like the last time, you instantly dismissed what I wrote, because to you I am a lesser person who can't possibly comprehend anything you say.

It's pointless discussing anything with you.  Seriously.  When you can put your ego and your wallet aside, I'll take you seriously.  Until then, please just put me on ignore and I'll do the same to you.  For the sake of sanity, there's no reason for us to discuss anything further.

What is the purpose of this "supernet?" Is there any plan for a single consolidated wallet? Will a user be forced to transact in multiple currencies? Its hard enough getting people to accept a single cryptocurrency as viable how do you plan to sell them on a handful of currencies at the same time?

I don't understand how combining multiple coins into a "network" is going to serve any purpose. Its all just code. if you want a feature from another coin somebody just has to write it in (ahem...PoSv anyone?). A "supernet" will just confuse things and require a more robust development team to maintain it all. We barely have a development team capable of running a single coin let alone a network of them.

Exactly correct.  I'm glad I'm not the only one not seeing this as a solution.

-Fuse

[Chronikka]

I don't think changing the coin is the solution to anything right now. The technology has already far outpaced the market, at least as far as the blockchain is concerned. The industry we're all targeting is largely storefront retail businesses. Sure there are online head shops and such that will accept crypto currency, but most stores today are not doing that. Also last time I checked sending drugs through the mail was still illegal. So people are not going to be doing that with this coin (mostly...)

I think the biggest problem we have is making this thing (whatever it ends up being) work smoothly during in person sales/exchanges. And ATMs are not the answer.

[midnight_miner]

I don't think changing the coin is the solution to anything right now. The technology has already far outpaced the market, at least as far as the blockchain is concerned. The industry we're all targeting is largely storefront retail businesses. Sure there are online head shops and such that will accept crypto currency, but most stores today are not doing that. Also last time I checked sending drugs through the mail was still illegal. So people are not going to be doing that with this coin (mostly...)

I think the biggest problem we have is making this thing (whatever it ends up being) work smoothly during in person sales/exchanges. And ATMs are not the answer.

+1 to that!

[pinchecobadre]

.....consolidation, while an excellent idea, would really be a pipe dream and will never EVER happen given the personalities at the helm of all these coins are either no where to be found, can't see past their own egos or are just unprofessional imbeciles who no one would ever want to work with. 

The problem all coins face is adoption.....the technology is all there....it's sound, it works, but no one in the legitimate cannabis-industry is willing to take the risks....largely due to the fucking imbeciles claiming to be DEVs and the cesspool that is BCTalk......one a side note, I would never EVER encourage ANY business person to come read the fucking bullshit that goes on here.

Anyway, back to the consolidation idea and why it's a pointless discussion, let's look at the so called DEVS of some of these coins...

Potcoin....PotLabs who? They've all but abandoned the community and don't give a shit when the community calls for change. "Let's Grow Together?"...... What a joke!

Cannacoin....seriously? Bunch of pre-pubescent stereotypical fuck-wads....Josh is a good developer, but needs to be locked in a hole coding and the muzzle kept on him tightly....and his brother locked up in jail with no internet access.  Josh chose "family" over his project and let his brother James do so much PR damage with his vendetta against CANN. Since working with Josh means you have to deal with his dipshit brother, Cannacoin wouldn't be worth the time.

Cannabiscoin have been unjustifiably attacked by those Cannacoin fuck-tards....Deltanine's greatest admirers....there's no chance in hell he'll want to work with anyone given the attacks he's received at the hands for the CCN people - I don't blame him either.  Also, if you chose to believe all the crap that has been written about them, why would we want to work with him......NEXT...

Maryjanecoin ..... Adam Garrity....for real? You'd be lucky to have your question stay in his thread for 5 mins before he lays down his censorship hammer and deletes your post.  He's another who thinks he's God's gift to the crypto-space, that everyone is beneath him and all others are copycats of his ideas....GOD forbid you tell him his "dabbubbleconcentrates.com" website looks like it wws developed by a five year old.....Adam will not work with anyone.

Dopecoindude....I actually like this guy....has some good intentions, but i'm not sure encouraging adoption and use of Dopecoin for nefarious transactions is the right pitch.

Jahvinci and the new Motacoin.....I also like this guy....he was directly responsible for hyping MARYJ to some stellar prices, but hyping and pump and dumps shouldn't be the focal point.....adoption should.  It's too early to tell how Jahvinci and Motacoin will fare, but he seems motivated and may be worth putting your faith in him.....just don't ask Adam Garrity about him as he'll quickly tell you some bullshit scam story, rather than STFU.....another sign of how much of an unprofessional loser Adam is....the better man wouldn't say shit.

Rdyoung, you have some decent ideas, but you're a lot like Adam Garrity in that you just can't handle criticisms AT ALL. You are convinced nyc2fuse is a moron who can't possibly grasp what your saying.  Your responses are riddled with unfounded accusations of stupidity, when that's clearly not the case. Nyc2fuse writes as intelligently as anyone I've seen here and you'd be wise to take some pointers.  With each one of your lame tirades at nyc2fuse, you look more and more childish to the reader.  I'd work on that if I were you, otherwise, no one will take you seriously; why would we when you can't seem to maintain a civil and intelligent exchange.

It's a shame because you're so passionate about cryptos and we need people like you, but not if you're unwilling to debate without resorting to childish remarks like...."clearly you either don't grasp ... Yadda yadda yadda or you're just an idiot".... These.types of exchanges are nauseating.

Anyway, sorry for the tirade....I needed a .moment to vent.

[midnight_miner]

.....consolidation, while an excellent idea, would really be a pipe dream and will never EVER happen given the personalities at the helm of all these coins are either no where to be found, can't see past their own egos or are just unprofessional imbeciles who no one would ever want to work with. 

 ... Yadda yadda yadda ....

Anyway, sorry for the tirade....I needed a .moment to vent.

pinchecobadre

A much needed therapy session!

Lets all go out and drink or inhale something together!

 

The adoption and ease-of-use, will be a good indicator of which of the coins should be supported.

That is where the discussions in the thread, I think (my small opinion), should be the focus at this point. 

[Chronikka]

.....consolidation, while an excellent idea, would really be a pipe dream and will never EVER happen given the personalities at the helm of all these coins are either no where to be found, can't see past their own egos or are just unprofessional imbeciles who no one would ever want to work with. 

 ... Yadda yadda yadda ....

Anyway, sorry for the tirade....I needed a .moment to vent.

pinchecobadre

A much needed therapy session!

Lets all go out and drink or inhale something together!

 

The adoption and ease-of-use, will be a good indicator of which of the coins should be supported.

That is where the discussions in the thread, I think (my small opinion), should be the focus at this point. 

Agree with this. Also its interesting that nobody associated with the Potcoin development team has had anything to add to these discussions. Maybe that's the problem. We're all assuming there is still a development team running this thing, but maybe its been quietly abandoned after the PoSv screw up and we're all just wasting our breath.

I think anything we do toward greater adoption has to begin with some sort of mobile wallet or payment app. Its the only way I see an average person picking this up. Based on the road map I saw from ~5 months ago a mobile application for iPhones and Android was supposed to be launched back in August:

http://www.potcoinjoint.com/forum/potcoin/press-news/3307-potcoin-development-roadmap

So what ever happened to that, Is it just vaporware? Has anything been released or any updates provided?

[barabbas]

.....consolidation, while an excellent idea, would really be a pipe dream and will never EVER happen given the personalities at the helm of all these coins are either no where to be found, can't see past their own egos or are just unprofessional imbeciles who no one would ever want to work with. 

 ... Yadda yadda yadda ....

Anyway, sorry for the tirade....I needed a .moment to vent.

pinchecobadre

A much needed therapy session!

Lets all go out and drink or inhale something together!

 

The adoption and ease-of-use, will be a good indicator of which of the coins should be supported.

That is where the discussions in the thread, I think (my small opinion), should be the focus at this point. 

Agree with this. Also its interesting that nobody associated with the Potcoin development team has had anything to add to these discussions. Maybe that's the problem. We're all assuming there is still a development team running this thing, but maybe its been quietly abandoned after the PoSv screw up and we're all just wasting our breath.

I think anything we do toward greater adoption has to begin with some sort of mobile wallet or payment app. Its the only way I see an average person picking this up. Based on the road map I saw from ~5 months ago a mobile application for iPhones and Android was supposed to be launched back in August:

http://www.potcoinjoint.com/forum/potcoin/press-news/3307-potcoin-development-roadmap

So what ever happened to that, Is it just vaporware? Has anything been released or any updates provided?

 Just vaporware, obviously.The "development team" not just fucked up on POSv they haven't been able to keep the roadmap that they themselves set --- err, come to think of it, what "development team". It's just a fucked up individual under the pseudonym of "PotLabs" which, evidently, is no longer doing or even pretending to be doing anything. So, for all intents and purposes. this is an abandoned project, therefore any discussions, short of taking the project over, are a complete waste of time.

[Cogitorium]

Noticed a bunch new Potcoin posts on twitter today, featuring Mickey Mouse no less . Posted by "PotCoin News Watch ‏@PotCoinBot" Who controls this bot, does anyone know?

[CartmanSPC]

Here is a version of the Potcoin Windows wallet that reduces the max split from 2 million to 5 thousand:

potcoin-08.7.2-win32-5Kv2.zip

This version will cause you to stake more often if you have over 5K POT. It stakes more often because it divides up each stake into a max of 5 thousand coins instead of 2 million. This will not increase your staking reward. It should average to be about the same as the official wallet.

This version also implements a fix for allowing outputs to merge even if they're from the same transaction as the staked output. It does not include support for uPNP. I may compile in support for uPNP at a future date if time permits.

Source: https://github.com/CartmanSPC/Potcoin
Disclaimer: USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. DO NOT HOLD ME RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY LOST COIN.

Very nice...

Any chance you can compile one with the split set to 1k? I want to try something. I am going to see if I can goose the network every few days and get back some of the blocks we have been short

Sure....ultimately it would be nice if we could have this user selectable. If anyone knows of any coins that have this feature let me know...will see how hard it is to implement.

I have been trying different amounts for the max split setting using this address: PSbEfgz1EVA5z2mNwwbiTftgPBzFjhY6p5

The latest amount I have been testing is a max split setting of 100.

Some observations...as we already know, reducing the max stake causes you to stake more often but with a smaller reward. The address above has about 81k worth of Potcoin but only about 6K is currently staked leaving the rest for new blocks or to be spent. The wallet anticipates a new stake every 6 minutes with the current difficulty of .0024.

When I was testing with a max split of 5K about 46k was staked with whatever the difficulty was at the time. We know that decreasing the max split will cause more stakes to occur but also increase the difficulty.

I think the time coins spend being "staked" is 8 hours before they are available again.

Thoughts?

[CartmanSPC]

On a side note...it looks like I could make the max split a command line option using the command "reservebalance" as a template but that would take more time than I am willing to exert. Have not checked out how hyperstake or other coins do it yet.

[Chronikka]

I have been trying different amounts for the max split setting using this address: PSbEfgz1EVA5z2mNwwbiTftgPBzFjhY6p5

The latest amount I have been testing is a max split setting of 100.

Some observations...as we already know, reducing the max stake causes you to stake more often but with a smaller reward. The address above has about 81k worth of Potcoin but only about 6K is currently staked leaving the rest for new blocks or to be spent. The wallet anticipates a new stake every 6 minutes with the current difficulty of .0024.

When I was testing with a max split of 5K about 46k was staked with whatever the difficulty was at the time. We know that decreasing the max split will cause more stakes to occur but also increase the difficulty.

I think the time coins spend being "staked" is 8 hours before they are available again.

Thoughts?

It seems that making the value smaller would make the coin more usable. I brought up earlier that people looking to use the coin in a transaction can't stake their coins, missing out on possible interest. Having a smaller % of coins staked at any one time would help. Plus that's more staking, which should improve the network's health.

I don't know if its really necessary to make it user selectable. I think we should be able to come up with a reasonable value that works well, at least for now while the network is small.