[ANN] [PMC] Premine Coin | Rare | Mining Transaction Fee Proof of Concept

[fxmulder]

if you do not  roll back,this coin will be  meaningless,no one ask you to mine after 16000 block, some guys just want to mine to dump.

If I were the dev I would probably be thinking the same thing, but as a miner I wish he wouldn't because taking away a substantial portion of my current balance takes 'meaning' away from the coin for me.  Truthfully I don't care much either way, I'm just fighting for my coins

[Benezivas]

Other 350K coins are from a bug in the code(probably) and for me is not fair for the other minerd that hitted in the past days only tx fees.

I speak with not thousnd of coins but only few hundred.

I agree - That's not happening.

It certainly should not. People complaining about not getting any rewards may get some donations from stakeholders in the range from 5-10 PMC maybe, but anything more would be ridiculous. This coin isn't meant to be mined for big rewards, the TX fees as rewards were established to keep the network alive, not to fill the pockets of individual miners with the biggest hashing power. You mine this coin at the risk of not getting a reward per block at all or for low numbers of coins, this is how it was planned. Keep in mind that a single coin is already a good portion of just 500k coins.

[GröBkAz]

Other 350K coins are from a bug in the code(probably) and for me is not fair for the other minerd that hitted in the past days only tx fees.

I speak with not thousnd of coins but only few hundred.

I agree - That's not happening.

It certainly should not. People complaining about not getting any rewards may get some donations from stakeholders in the range from 5-10 PMC maybe, but anything more would be ridiculous. This coin isn't meant to be mined for big rewards, the TX fees as rewards were establish to keep the network alive, not to fill the pockets of individual miners with the biggest hashing power. You mine this coin at the risk of not getting a reward per block at all or for low numbers of coins, this is how it was planned. Keep in mind that a single coin is already a good portion of just 500k coins.

I agree with you 100%

[vlight]

Premine was 100% mined. There cannot be more than 500K coins. It must be reverted back to original state(15999 block). Otherwise you will sabotage the integrity of the coin. Nobody will take the coin seriously for sure.

[creditcoin_CRD]

Premine was 100% mined. There cannot be more than 500K coins. It must be reverted back to original state(15999 block).

Testing now, if all goes well we should be back up and running.

[Nullu]

I don't think anyone for one second thought we were going to let the new coins exist. I assumed right away they would be invalid.

500k coins. That's all there is and ever will be. 

[minime1]

Premine was 100% mined. There cannot be more than 500K coins. It must be reverted back to original state(15999 block).

Testing now, if all goes well we should be back up and running.

Thanks so much for your effort! I have great hope in this coin.

[Seidr]

Premine was 100% mined. There cannot be more than 500K coins. It must be reverted back to original state(15999 block).

Testing now, if all goes well we should be back up and running.

Thanks so much for your effort! I have great hope in this coin.

+1

[Nullu]

Premine was 100% mined. There cannot be more than 500K coins. It must be reverted back to original state(15999 block).

Testing now, if all goes well we should be back up and running.

Thanks so much for your effort! I have great hope in this coin.

+1 

[subSTRATA]

I don't think anyone for one second thought we were going to let the new coins exist. I assumed right away they would be invalid.

500k coins. That's all there is and ever will be.  

You are again misunderstanding how decentralized coins work. You, developer and whoever else think like you are nothing but
people voting for blockchain 1 (500k coins). Some other people might be fine with continuing on blockchain 2 (1M+ coins) and
no one can prevent those other people from mining their blockchain or even dethroning blockchain 1. If someone manages to
bribe MtGox or Cryptsy to add blockchain 2 instead of 1 then blockchain 2 will have advantage over blockchain 1. In other words,
do not fool yourself and others into thinking majority wins or that having just 500k coins is definitely a better option. Just like
hype over DOGE made it uber cryptocoin in many areas, in same or similar fashion blockchain 2 could become the next big thing!

Second blockchain will live for as long as at least 2 nodes are on it and 1 of them is mining. It is the genius of cryptocoins, all
work is done by machines and humans are there just to eventualy manage and service those machines.

[Nullu]

I don't think anyone for one second thought we were going to let the new coins exist. I assumed right away they would be invalid.

500k coins. That's all there is and ever will be.  

You are again misunderstanding how decentralized coins work. You, developer and whoever else think like you are nothing but
people voting for blockchain 1 (500k coins). Some other people might be fine with continuing on blockchain 2 (1M+ coins) and
no one can prevent those other people from mining their blockchain or even dethroning blockchain 1. If someone manages to
bribe MtGox or Cryptsy to add blockchain 2 instead of 1 then blockchain 2 will have advantage over blockchain 1. In other words,
do not fool yourself and others into thinking majority wins or that having just 500k coins is definitely a better option. Just like
hype over DOGE made it uber cryptocoin in many areas, in same or similar fashion blockchain 2 could become the next big thing!

Second blockchain will live for as long as at least 2 nodes are on it and 1 of them is mining. It is the genius of cryptocoins, all
work is done by machines and humans are there just to eventualy manage and service those machines.

I understand how that works, and at no point did I say nobody couldn't use the other blockchain. No where have I stated this.

If people want to mine a hyper inflationary coin, that is up to them. I just don't know why anyone would. If I understand this bug correctly, there is no cap? Is there a cap?

Anything's possible, but the likelihood of anyone preferring that concept over the one Premine has set out is going to be mining a coin so entirely different you may as well call it Inflation Coin. I'm ok with that.

The reason I didn't bring it up in the first place is because the idea of the borked forkchain being widely accepted seemed unthinkable, but by all means, if there is support for it, people can vote with their hashpower, or as they say, one cpu, one vote.

[subSTRATA]

Because 100% distribution of coins on blockchain 1 failed, that's why.

[shanent]

I don't think anyone for one second thought we were going to let the new coins exist. I assumed right away they would be invalid.

500k coins. That's all there is and ever will be.  

You are again misunderstanding how decentralized coins work. You, developer and whoever else think like you are nothing but
people voting for blockchain 1 (500k coins). Some other people might be fine with continuing on blockchain 2 (1M+ coins) and
no one can prevent those other people from mining their blockchain or even dethroning blockchain 1. If someone manages to
bribe MtGox or Cryptsy to add blockchain 2 instead of 1 then blockchain 2 will have advantage over blockchain 1. In other words,
do not fool yourself and others into thinking majority wins or that having just 500k coins is definitely a better option. Just like
hype over DOGE made it uber cryptocoin in many areas, in same or similar fashion blockchain 2 could become the next big thing!

Second blockchain will live for as long as at least 2 nodes are on it and 1 of them is mining. It is the genius of cryptocoins, all
work is done by machines and humans are there just to eventualy manage and service those machines.

Point for you but if the issue is due to a variable overflow this coin on the 2nd chain could not have a maximum number of coins generated or not?

Also the second chain must be fixed.

[mrbildo]

Just throwing it out there but is there any chance the recent fork/bug was caused by someone implementing a 51% attack on the network?

As this coin is SHA256 there are many individuals and unknown pools with huge amounts of hash rate that may have switched to Preminecoin and dominated the network for a short while and inserted 6 false blocks in a row somehow?

I'm no expert in this or anything but I can see how this is possible, if premine was forked directly from the bitcoin client there may have been many miners or programmers who have been working on 51% attacks on bitcoin that may have taken the opportunity to test out their attack method on a clonecoin with a very low,  hash rate.

Anyone with more knowledge think this is possible?

[Nullu]

Because 100% distribution of coins on blockchain 1 failed, that's why.

Because of a bug, not because of bad concept.

[Nullu]

I don't think anyone for one second thought we were going to let the new coins exist. I assumed right away they would be invalid.

500k coins. That's all there is and ever will be.  

You are again misunderstanding how decentralized coins work. You, developer and whoever else think like you are nothing but
people voting for blockchain 1 (500k coins). Some other people might be fine with continuing on blockchain 2 (1M+ coins) and
no one can prevent those other people from mining their blockchain or even dethroning blockchain 1. If someone manages to
bribe MtGox or Cryptsy to add blockchain 2 instead of 1 then blockchain 2 will have advantage over blockchain 1. In other words,
do not fool yourself and others into thinking majority wins or that having just 500k coins is definitely a better option. Just like
hype over DOGE made it uber cryptocoin in many areas, in same or similar fashion blockchain 2 could become the next big thing!

Second blockchain will live for as long as at least 2 nodes are on it and 1 of them is mining. It is the genius of cryptocoins, all
work is done by machines and humans are there just to eventualy manage and service those machines.

Point for you but if the issue is due to a variable overflow this coin on the 2nd chain could not have a maximum number of coins generated or not?

Also the second chain must be fixed.

I don't know. I assumed it was hyper inflationary, which is why the idea of it being adopted never crossed my mind.

[_CR_]

the second blockchain would have 1M coins. If not fixed after 16000 blocks it would generate other 500000 coins, and again after other 16000 and again, again and again.

I personally vote for the first blockchain, but if fixed also the second is usable

[deodecagone]

the second blockchain would have 1M coins. If not fixed after 16000 blocks it would generate other 500000 coins, and again after other 16000 and again, again and again.

I personally vote for the first blockchain, but if fixed also the second is usable

+1 Initial block chain of course, the second chain is just yet another crap and which is probably hoarded by too few people

[win24]

Thanks,
13eoJKc9q71wXHKxpEztA1wm4qw6u7rppy

[Nullu]

the second blockchain would have 1M coins. If not fixed after 16000 blocks it would generate other 500000 coins, and again after other 16000 and again, again and again.

I personally vote for the first blockchain, but if fixed also the second is usable

Well, there's teo main ways you can handle the alternate blockchain;

- Let it die
- Let it carry on, and consider the bug a "feature".

Again, I'm not sure who would want to mine or hold a coin long term that decreases in value over time. I did actually once joke about the idea of a coin that would create a massive influx of coins after so many blocks. I created a thread about it a few weeks ago. I think I dubbed it DumpCoin, or something like that.

Sure, if people want "Dumpcoin", they can rebrand the coin and mine it all they want. But it's completely the opposite of what Premine is trying to accomplish, so for it to survive it would need to be rebranded, or possibly re-released.