 |
August 29, 2026, 03:58:13 PM |
|
Thank you for taking the time to actually review the BitQube repository and chain rather than simply making assumptions. We appreciate the detailed feedback, and we agree that miners should verify the code and network for themselves.
A few points deserve clarification from the BitQube team:
1. Ecosystem Reserve / 641,600 BTQ
Yes — this part is correct.
BitQube has a fixed maximum supply of 8,000,000 BTQ.
• 641,600 BTQ (8.02%) — Ecosystem Reserve, created in block 1
• 7,358,400 BTQ (91.98%) — Community mining emission
The 8.02% figure is therefore based on the total 8,000,000 BTQ maximum supply, not on the amount of BTQ that happens to exist at an early block height.
At the very beginning of a PoW chain, the reserve naturally represents a much larger percentage of the coins currently in existence because the remaining 7,358,400 BTQ has not yet been mined.
The reserve allocation is disclosed in the current BitQube README and is not hidden. It is intended for development, infrastructure, security, partnerships and listings.
2. Current holder distribution
We agree that early-chain distribution can be highly concentrated.
This is a newly launched PoW network and the majority of the eventual 7,358,400 BTQ mining emission has obviously not yet entered circulation.
We encourage miners to independently examine the explorer and distribution data rather than relying on statements from the project team.
We also agree that publishing clearer information about the reserve addresses and their intended use is beneficial for the community.
3. Mining hashrate and network security
The concern about early hashrate concentration is reasonable.
BitQube is a PoW/KawPoW network, and independent miners and independent pools are important to network decentralization.
The pool statistics have also changed since the numbers quoted in the original post. The public pool currently shows 12 miners and approximately 572 MH/s, so the quoted 8 miners / 696 MH/s is already an older snapshot.
We do NOT want BitQube to depend permanently on a single pool.
Our objective is to attract independent miners, additional pools, GPU mining operators and eventually broader infrastructure participation.
We encourage anyone with mining infrastructure to run an independent BitQube node and, where possible, operate independent mining infrastructure rather than assuming the official pool should represent the entire network.
4. Asset issuance fees
This point is correct and we want to be completely clear about it.
On BitQube mainnet, the asset issuance fees are sent to designated fee addresses rather than being sent to the traditional Ravencoin-style burn addresses.
This was an intentional protocol change and is visible directly in the source code.
Commit e93488c explicitly changed the terminology and logic from BurnAddress to FeeAddress.
The current mainnet code also identifies the fee address as a spendable administrative/project address.
The testnet configuration still uses the traditional burn addresses.
We understand why miners and asset issuers would want this clearly documented, and we agree that the documentation should explain the purpose and governance of these fees more explicitly.
5. The old about file
This criticism is valid.
The repository’s old about file still contains inherited text stating that BitQube has “no pre-mine” or developer allocation.
That text is outdated and conflicts with the current BitQube tokenomics.
The current README correctly documents the 641,600 BTQ Ecosystem Reserve.
We will treat the outdated about text as documentation that needs to be corrected rather than trying to defend an obvious inconsistency.
6. Repository / binary housekeeping
We also agree with the general principle that miners should be able to reproduce BitQube from source and verify what they are running.
The repository is open source and provides build instructions. Anyone operating serious mining hardware should build from a trusted source/release and verify binaries rather than blindly executing an unknown binary.
Bottom line
We don’t expect miners to trust BitQube simply because the team says so.
The chain is open source, PoW/KawPoW, and its consensus parameters, emission schedule and asset-fee rules can be inspected directly.
We welcome independent miners, developers and security researchers reviewing the code and pointing out inconsistencies.
If something is factually wrong, we will correct it.
If something is intentionally designed that way, we will explain why.
And if something in the documentation is simply outdated, we will fix the documentation.
For miners, the most important next step is exactly what the original poster suggested: verify the code, verify the chain, and make your own decision.
Thank you again for doing the technical review and raising these questions.
BitQube Team
|
