[GPUC] GPU Coin | Mandatory Wallet Update

Quote from: grbox2001 on March 05, 2014, 06:33:27 AM

Dear IPO investors,

   First of all I share your frustration and concerns, and extend my utmost apologies regarding the failures associated with the initial launch of GPU Coin. While I have plenty of experience in small business management and logistics, I am still finding that the tech industry, where software is the driving force behind the entire business, is quite different. I originally found a developer that offered his services to build a bullet proof coin. After looking over his web site, where he explicitly brought to light scam coins and highlighted other deterring details of other coin launches, I made the decision to hire him. At that point I began the thread and started soliciting IPO investors to allow for GPU Coin LLC to raise the funding required for stocking the store front.

   After the thread started, I was informed by the community that scrypt coins would soon be outdated once the ASICs started hitting shelves in large quantities. I have seen only Gridseeds that are expensive and put out small amounts of hash, albeit at a much lower wattage. At this point I took a poll and asked the IPO investors to make a decision. Should GPU Coin be maintained as a scrypt and possibly be hammered, or switch up to scrypt-n to deter not only the current and future ASICs, but to alleviate the multipool hash rates that would no doubt ensue once the coin maintained any sort of intrinsic value. The GPU Coin community was loud and clear, and the decision was made to change to scrypt-n. After I informed the developer of the intended change, what was given was a wallet that was missing libraries and only had one node, which was my own computer. The lack of a github, where others could grab the source for their own uses only added to the confusion. The fact that there were 1,400 people sitting in the IRC chat room at launch, making this launch extremely traffic heavy, only made things worse since GPU Coin was not ready for that volume of users. It was obvious that there were many people that wanted in on GPU Coin, due to the business plan associated with it.

   The first launch ended in complete failure with the block chain forking all over the place. Recognizing the situation I called off the launch, citing that it was FUBAR. I started looking for someone to fix the problems and make GPU Coin launch properly. I was contacted by micryon who offered his services to help GPU Coin launch. I was also contacted by the owner of OakPool, who stated they had already formulated a fix for the source code with their team of developers and were ready to get it out in the open. I made the decision to go with this new team of developers who had already fixed the source and had successful launches in the past.

   We pushed for an extremely quick launch, since we already had the source code fixed, and wanted to make sure that people who prepared for the GPU Coin launch wouldn't have to wait an entire week. The team helped me through setting up nodes and making sure the coin wouldn't fork. We launched what we thought was the right coin. Although the forking was alleviated, it turned out that the programmer had accidentally pushed the wrong source code forward, releasing an exact copy of Pandacoin, not GPU Coin. To preserve the integrity of GPU Coin and our IPO investors I decided that giving the IPO investors something completely different than what we initially agreed upon without consent was not the way to go. I was forced to abort the launch again. A single mistake, was made under stress, had halted everyone's hard work.

   We now have a team consisting of micryon, cryptowest, and their associates. To ensure a successful launch, the new launch date is Sunday March 9th to allow for additional testing and debugging. This will enable our development team to push out GPU Coin with no errors. The nodes and source code will be ready and GPU Coin will be launched successfully. Although we have suffered some bumps in the road our plan is sound and I am confident in GPU Coin's imminent successful launch.

   As for the the business side, I have a prototype modular mining case being delivered this weekend that is made from aluminum, has holding space for up to 8 GPUs, slots for two PSUs and, of course, room for the motherboard. The prototype will have round stock pillars that thread together to allow for stacking. Everything is made of aluminum that is rigid and supportive. I have also contacted TMSI Industries, Inc. in Canada, to design and prototype an 8 way PCIe 16x USB splitter/riser. It is comprise of a PCB that plugs into the 16x PCIe slot on the motherboard and a secondary PCB that attaches to the GPUs. The splitter has 8 female USB 3.0 connector and the secondary PCB that attaches to the GPUs is SATA powered and has another female USB 3.0 connector. This will allow for any motherboard with a single 16x slot to have the maximum amount of GPUs supported by the OS in service, without having to purchase an extremely expensive motherboard. I was going to green light the project a few days ago, but the initial launch failure was a much more pressing issue.

   In summary, I again wish to apologize to you, our IPO investors, for the lack of contact as I was dealing with the situation in real time working with the development team. We will supply miners their GPUs without the hassle of transferring into fiat currency, at prices cheaper than the main competitors. GPU Coin LLC will further the mining community by developing hardware that will push GPU mining to a more efficient platform. I am firm in my belief that GPU Coin LLC will live up to our original plan as we solve our technical issues. I will stand by my offer to allow any IPO investor to back out if they think GPU Coin and the supporting business plan hold no intrinsic value. I am confident that we now have a team that can solve our technical issues. I remain dedicated to launching a quality coin worthy of your investment and support.

   GPU Coin LLC, CEO
   Jaymes Reilly
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow! This sounds pretty sweet actually. Looking like a comeback for GPUcoin!

@Micryon, your successful launch of RealStackCoin has earned my trust in that you will provide great service to GPUCoin.
@cryptowest, let's face it, you were dealt a shit hand. Dust off your shoulders, crack your knuckles and test, re-test, and test again before launch day. I wish you the best of luck with this launch and will be following your launch of FragCoin.
@GPUCoin CEO, don't get ahead of yourself, there's no sense investing money (be it IPO, or personal) in prototypes when your your first prototype (the coin itself) just crashed and burned, not once, not twice, but three times! Let's take this step by step: Successfully launch GPUCoin. Successfully launch the store front. Successfully launch the marketing campaigns. Then think about prototyping mobos, peripherals, and what-not. It's plain to see that there are still some of us in this community that still believe in you, your team, and the coin/business model. Don't blow it by diverting your attention to some silly cables.
Best of luck this sunday. I'll be watching.

Thank you for the update.
as an IPO holder, i'd really like the -n to be reevaluated, there are other types of measures that can be taken, doesn't cause everyone to switch over to the vertcoin miner (horrid in my opinion). using -n requires many people to do all new testing on their cards to see how high they can get their hash and make sure it doesn't crash.
In the end, you gain less coins for the same amount of power. unless this coin raises in value quite a lot, its not worth the electricity bill to mine it. so in short if we stick with -n i'd like my IPO back as that will just cause this coin to flop and i don't want any part of that.