[LOGIC] Logicoin | Decentralized Anonymous Smart Contracts | Blockchain Tech

[DarkAGeS]

Yes, but without the people who wish to purchase a coin LGC is the only digit on your computer. Developers did not do it for free at the beginning of the difficulty of extraction is always low, and this is their time to take LGC.  they have the greatest impact on the market price now sow can earn a lot.

do not forget it.

you can only suppose that. devs can develop crypto just for fun or training before something big.
never mind...

your exact wording was "Whether developers have any idea about marketing? ... You want my money?"
this is wrong appeal to devs logically.
but we talk about LOGIC here

[sumgye]

I haven't lost hope but, I'm feeling like the horse is losing steam.  The silence is deafening.

i dont' mind the silence so much as long as everything is working properly. i can get pretty noisy when my stuff isn't working.

i'm not really concerned about the silence of the dev. i mean, he is a member of the cryptocoin revival foundation. what's he going to do, let the coin die and then revive it at a later date? that wouldn't make much sense.

i don't envy the amount of work he must have on his plate in order to get pulse up and running and all the wallets updated.

bring on the pulse!!!

I hear you, but many questions have been asked and issues brought up over the last 3 or 4 weeks by the "community".  Nothing was addressed.   PoS???  Anon???  Ticker Change???  etc...etc...etc...

I get the feeling the devs:
A) want the price to drop so they can accumulate more LOGIC (understandable)
B) have placed this currency on the back burner

We are the early adopters and supporters.  We deserve an update every now an then, even if it's just a "hey, we're still here, no updates but we are working on  ____   ____   ____.

agreed.

If you want updates on pulse, look here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=576714.msg7819309#msg7819309

And if you want to know where the dev is, scroll down.

Yeah. Um. I'd say we got ditched for two weeks. I'm out. Keeping this community at least updated obviously isn't that important.

Sorry, for my uncharacteristically blunt and non-diplomatic stance. But this sucks.

[DarkAGeS]

You heard it here first, the next novel feature to be integrated, it's called DVG (aka DEVGONE)

Here's how it works:
Similar to when DGW kicks in, increasing difficulty when NetHash goes up, DVG kicks in and automatically lowers Developer involvement when the price of a coin goes too high, or the community gets too excited about a coin.

Believe it or not, it's quite possible, this innovative, ground breaking feature has already been implemented here. 

ahahahh lol
but I think we should be more optimistic

[Unkn0vn]

LOGIC is accepted in PL, quote from one of the shops:
"From this day forward we accept cryptocurrency in exchange for IT hardware (workstations, mining rigs etc.). Contact us to get your calculation in cryptocurrency your interested in dealing with - we accept matured coins (BitCoin BTC; LiteCoin LTC; LogiCoin LGC; HiroCoin HIRO; DarkCoin DRK and others)! We invite all to purchase IT goods at nuclearIT.pl for Cryptocurrencies! (all purchases are documented with according invoice!)"

quote from: nuclearIT.pl

[feina24h]

some words from dev will do the work, dev atleast show some presence here 

[mazril]

Maybe dev is on holiday xD and relax before back to school

I'm out sell 70% of me LGC xD

[Logicoin.info]

I was asked to hold off on getting pulse on the LGC Mainnet for now so I've gotten together a to do list.

Immediate Focus:

Upgrade Wallet (Complete)
New Icons + Branding (Complete)
Update Ticker to LOGIC (Complete)
Fix Subsidy ()
Include Tor Support (Almost Complete)
Implement Pulse (Almost Complete)

I've already contacted a few merchants and once pulse goes live we will be making a major push towards getting a vendor API.

Wallet style has been upgraded and also includes a statistics page and block explorer. Branding and Icons have been changed to reflect Logicoin's updated graphics. Ticker has been changed from (LGC) to (LOGIC).

Considering quick & dirty subsidy fix while waiting for pulse:
When difficulty is under 50 then reward is 20
if difficulty is under 100 reward is 10
otherwise reward is 5

Chances are that reward would be 20 which would benefit miners. At worst case scenario reward would never be lower than 5.

I've Tested Tor Support and there's a few bugs that might make it problematic for nodes that don't upgrade so rather than do two mandatory upgrades I've decided to hold off on full Tor implementation.

Some Screenshots of the new wallet style. This update is optional.

You can download the new wallet from: https://mega.co.nz/#!E5ggnLpD!hk4--hn_A4J_p5fLOeO0M94By_shYyQfWv0ST1ib2gg

[holepunch]

Like the new wallet, nice to hear from you again,hope holidays were good .
Plans listed above are interesting, not sure about the subsidy though-pretty sure it will invite multipools to come mine and dump, also with a hard limit on the diff/reward settings once diff reached towards 50 (if only) multipools would be able to time their mining around this diff limit and exploit it

I guess it all depends on what your aim is with the subsidy (hard fork ?) as it will most certainly drive down current coin pricing -  and the plans for the coin after subsidy/6 month mining plan as on opening page(hard fork?)
i have always wondered if there was a way to relate coin mining diff/coin reward per block to current coin price through the pow phase of a coins distribution to discourage multipools or always make logicoin mining a slightly lower profit than the other most profitable x11 coins say 2%-5% less with a dynamic diff/block coin reward and make the difference up with a 2%-5% annual stake in the wallet

There are some pretty big logicoin holders according to logicoin blockchain explorer and i am sure they will have some input about the subsidy

[DarkAGeS]

Considering quick & dirty subsidy fix while waiting for pulse:
When difficulty is under 50 then reward is 20
if difficulty is under 100 reward is 10
otherwise reward is 5

I am not sure about this change. You should implement it very carefully. Or may be you should not at all.
Now reward is 6.25 and have transparent schedule of changing.
You want to increase it 3 times at once (to 20), increase inflation 3 times - what is a point?
And if hashrate start to increase - reward will be halfed. This is incomprehensible for common miners.
Multipools don't care - they have automated algorithms. All coins are in the same boat regarding to multipools.
I think every stable coin shoud touch block reward and inflation changes only in special cases - we have not such situation.
Look at vertcoin - price has fallen 10 times, but devs (and vertcoin has authoritative devs) don't hurry to change inflation in spite of bugholders weeping.

Logicoin.info please think carefully about this moment.

upd: at least don't implement this dirty fix while waiting for pulse.
Pulse is new technology and can attract new miners and investors, but dirty fix is just... dirty

[Eastwind]

Considering quick & dirty subsidy fix while waiting for pulse:
When difficulty is under 50 then reward is 20
if difficulty is under 100 reward is 10
otherwise reward is 5

I am not sure about this change. You should implement it very carefully. Or may be you should not at all.
Now reward is 6.25 and have transparent schedule of changing.
You want to increase it 3 times at once (to 20), increase inflation 3 times - what is a point?
And if hashrate start to increase - reward will be halfed. This is incomprehensible for common miners.
Multipools don't care - they have automated algorithms. All coins are in the same boat regarding to multipools.
I think every stable coin shoud touch block reward and inflation changes only in special cases - we have not such situation.
Look at vertcoin - price has fallen 10 times, but devs don't hurry to change inflation in spite of bugholders weeping.

Logicoin.info please think carefully about this moment.

upd: at least don't implement this dirty fix while waiting for pulse.
Pulse is new technology and can attract new miners and investors, but dirty fix is just... dirty

Agreed

I agree with the above comments.

I do not agree with changing the block reward hastily.

We can make the 6.25 reward lasting longer than a month and wait for the new features. This will not devalue the existing LGC  and will not reduce the difficulty too much.

There is no time to hard fork the chain to implement that if we want to give 2~3 weeks notice. So the new implementation can happen after 3.125 block reward.

I would suggest making the block reward 0.1 when the reward is supposed to be below .1 after halving. A little bit inflation is healthy to compensate the loss of coins and economy growth.

We need to find use for the coins, otherwise it has no value whatever we do to the coin itself. However, if we make the coins attractive, we may find use for the coins. It is cyclical.

[Logicoin.info]

Considering quick & dirty subsidy fix while waiting for pulse:
When difficulty is under 50 then reward is 20
if difficulty is under 100 reward is 10
otherwise reward is 5

I am not sure about this change. You should implement it very carefully. Or may be you should not at all.
Now reward is 6.25 and have transparent schedule of changing.
You want to increase it 3 times at once (to 20), increase inflation 3 times - what is a point?
And if hashrate start to increase - reward will be halfed. This is incomprehensible for common miners.
Multipools don't care - they have automated algorithms. All coins are in the same boat regarding to multipools.
I think every stable coin shoud touch block reward and inflation changes only in special cases - we have not such situation.
Look at vertcoin - price has fallen 10 times, but devs don't hurry to change inflation in spite of bugholders weeping.

Logicoin.info please think carefully about this moment.

upd: at least don't implement this dirty fix while waiting for pulse.
Pulse is new technology and can attract new miners and investors, but dirty fix is just... dirty

Agreed

I agree with the above comments.

I do not agree with changing the block reward hastily.

We can make the 6.25 reward lasting longer than a month and wait for the new features. This will not devalue the existing LGC  and will not reduce the difficulty too much.

There is no time to hard fork the chain to implement that if we want to give 2~3 weeks notice. So the new implementation can happen after 3.125 block reward.

I would suggest making the block reward 0.1 when the reward is supposed to be below .1 after halving. A little bit inflation is healthy to compensate the loss of coins and economy growth.

We need to find use for the coins, otherwise it has no value whatever we do to the coin itself. However, if we make the coins attractive, we may find use for the coins. It is cyclical.

This is the kind of feedback I'm looking for. I only mention changing subsidy as a temporary stop gap, once Pulse is fully implemented we will get a new subsidy to go along with it.

I've had pulse running in a private testnet for the better part of two weeks now and its all looking good but I have to respect obfuscode's wishes and wait till he comes back from HOPE before I can progress any further with implementing it for a public test.

I've been away from the scene for a little while and have recieved alot of pressure to go Proof of Stake. The question I'd like to put to you guys is that if going PoS meant a coin swap would you still be willing to look at that as an option? The coin swap could be handled in multiple ways to ensure everyone gets their coins but still its not at all my prefered option.

[Eastwind]

I do not like the PoS idea as there are too many out there. We are too late in PoS and we need a multipool to support the price if LGC has no daily use.

The new feature I would like is the anonymity. That would be complementary to BTC. So there will be many uses for that.

[Logicoin.info]

I do not like the PoS idea as there are too many out there. We are too late in PoS and we need a multipool to support the price if LGC has no daily use.

The new feature I would like is the anonymity. That would be complementary to BTC. So there will be many uses for that.

I don't like PoS either but the supporters have been very vocal and my inbox is essentially full of "lets go pos". Doesn't hurt to get the public opinion.

Tor is step 1 in anonymity and I do have a build with full tor integration running but I need to find a more elegant way of letting onion nodes and normal nodes communicate. Tor and pulse should compliment each other and situate us nicely for widespread merchant adaption.

[Unkn0vn]

Reward change: NO!
PoS: NO!
Marketing: YES
Changes: YES

We don't need changes in the coin core - we just need more publicity, get more attention around the Coin. Dirty tricks will only make us look weak, that the initial plan is not working - it's not good. Multipool that works solid might be a good idea it could increase the price, but it would have no use without newcomers. Just stay on track and all will be well.

We need 2 things now:
1) Publicity
2) Price increase

One will support the other, then when you implement you major plans in to the coin - is should go UP.

[cointradero]

I do not like the PoS idea as there are too many out there. We are too late in PoS and we need a multipool to support the price if LGC has no daily use.

The new feature I would like is the anonymity. That would be complementary to BTC. So there will be many uses for that.

I don't like PoS either but the supporters have been very vocal and my inbox is essentially full of "lets go pos". Doesn't hurt to get the public opinion.

Tor is step 1 in anonymity and I do have a build with full tor integration running but I need to find a more elegant way of letting onion nodes and normal nodes communicate. Tor and pulse should compliment each other and situate us nicely for widespread merchant adaption.

There are always a vocal minority of majority bagholders that want full PoS because they believe it increases the value of their bag.  It has nothing to do with anything else besides the mistaken belief that somehow limiting supply increases demand.

It does not.  All it does is drive away miners which are the major source of liquidity in a nascent coin that doesn't have much use in the marketplace. 

[cointradero]

There are always a vocal minority of majority bagholders that want full PoS because they believe it increases the value of their bag.  It has nothing to do with anything else besides the mistaken belief that somehow limiting supply increases demand.

It does not.  All it does is drive away miners which are the major source of liquidity in a nascent coin that doesn't have much use in the marketplace.  

With that second sentence, I'm not sure if you are for or against PoS.

Also, I'm not sure where you are going with the statement: "always a vocal minority of majority bagholders that want full PoS"
Sorry, but "always" implies Proof of Stake has been around for years when Poof of Stake is an infant technology.

Well, you sound defensive.  If your attacks against my statements are reliant upon debating the loose use of the word "always" then you are stretching.  I meant that since Blackcoin skyrocketed, there have been so many full PoS coins and other coins clamoring to go full PoS, and it's usually led by a minority of the coin community who happen to hold a majority of the current coins in circulation.  Hence, they stand to gain the most from full PoS as they are effectively the gatekeepers to most current and future coins without them having to worry about losing out to increased mining interest.  

PoS is not in its infancy.  In cryto-terms, it's old as could be and originated with Peercoin which almost every PoS coin borrows heavily from.  It will be two years old next month.  Full PoS is relatively new, but so saturated in the marketplace at this point that switching to it does nothing from a demand standpoint.  

[cointradero]

There are always a vocal minority of majority bagholders that want full PoS because they believe it increases the value of their bag.  It has nothing to do with anything else besides the mistaken belief that somehow limiting supply increases demand.

It does not.  All it does is drive away miners which are the major source of liquidity in a nascent coin that doesn't have much use in the marketplace.  

With that second sentence, I'm not sure if you are for or against PoS.

Also, I'm not sure where you are going with the statement: "always a vocal minority of majority bagholders that want full PoS"
Sorry, but "always" implies Proof of Stake has been around for years when Poof of Stake is an infant technology.

Well, you sound defensive.  If your attacks against my statements are reliant upon debating the loose use of the word "always" then you are stretching.  I meant that since Blackcoin skyrocketed, there have been so many full PoS coins and other coins clamoring to go full PoS, and it's usually led by a minority of the coin community who happen to hold a majority of the current coins in circulation.  Hence, they stand to gain the most from full PoS as they are effectively the gatekeepers to most current and future coins without them having to worry about losing out to increased mining interest.  

PoS is not in its infancy.  In cryto-terms, it's old as could be and originated with Peercoin which almost every PoS coin borrows heavily from.  It will be two years old next month.  Full PoS is relatively new, but so saturated in the marketplace at this point that switching to it does nothing from a demand standpoint.  

My apologies if what I said sounded like an attack, not my intention...

Also, not defensive, just trying to understand your statement, "mistaken belief that somehow limiting supply increases demand".  Not not sure how PoS limits supply.

As for PoS in general, I'm neutral.  As for LOGIC, I believe it was the Devs intention all along to use PoS to achieve the rest of the coins up to 10 million, but I may be wrong.  There may be some other plan in the works to achieve the total.  PoW only achieves ~4.2 million.

On PoS being new, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Unless the interest rate is ridiculously high (> 7% annually), whatever coins in circulation would take a over a decade to double again.  Hence, the first 4 months would produce X number of coins, and then it would take at least a decade to make that many more again. 

Now I don't actually know what the planned PoS interest structure is for this coin, but if it's too high, then it promotes only hoarding.  With only one exchange, you really don't want to take away one of the only other means of acquiring the coin. 

Now I'll also agree that the halving rate is really quick on this coin as is, so it isn't like there is a ton of traditional mining left to do, so the argument is kind of pointless to make either way, but the above statements about changing a mined coin to full PoS stand just because the end result is a distribution like I mentioned above where early adopters hold an inordinate amount of power over the price and liquidity of the coin. 

[mazril]

I have the same thing. it is a tiny issue.

Btw. multilogic is dead for good?

[bahu]

LGC goes POS? ( i saw on wallet screenshot)

[Logicoin.info]

i've noticed a small issue with the new wallet.

the wallet totals are not updating as new transactions come in.

after i restart the wallet. the totals update to reflect the new transactions.



notice the transactions on the right.





after i restart the wallet, notice the transactions are the same but, now the wallet totals have updated.



not a big deal but, just thought i'd share.

anyone else experiencing this?

Cheers. I'll have a look at this and get it fixed.