I wouldn't consider GPUcoin dead as such. It has active dev's it just needs a marketing push. I'd suggest thats its a LARGE project and requires almost full time dedication. Maybe not the sort of coin you guys are looking for.
It would work if that dedicated team would cooperate with the foundation. I will post in their thread to ask if they really need a takeover.
If they have active dev they only need some help on other parts, not development, like 66Coin otherwise! And we're #2 on the voting list!
Anyway totally agree with talking with their developer directly!
What do you mean pikimunga? Are you saying that 66coin is a better fit? (I'm sorry, but I am not sure I understand your first sentence).
What is it that you like about 66coin? I have never heard of it before -- why do you think it would be a good fit? Maybe you can get some converts to your cause if you tell us all why it is so good!
I agree with you (if I understand correctly) and Jonesd on GPU Coin about talking with the developer. If the coin has an active team, then I don't really understand why they would be on the list. Every coin needs a "marketing push", as esotericism put it. It is entirely possible that I may be missing the exact goals of the Coin Revival Foundation, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but that doesn't seem to be a perfect fit. It can be nuanced, but there is a danger that a coin with an active developer could use this group as a source for dumping their coins on a new crop of people. I realize that, depending on the situation, that is true with all "dead" coins as every holder has been stuck for a long time. But, it seems to me a coin that has been abandoned would have a much more enthusiastic crowd of coin holders, than one that is still being actively attended to by developers. The latter holders, I would think, will just use any upside to get out as their belief in the coin has soured. An abandoned coin tends to have holders that are more bitter about the developers than the coin itself.
Of course, as I mentioned, there are nuances involved and each situation is different. It sounds like Jonesd is handling it correctly by contacting the developers directly.
But, regardless of how that works out, I would certainly like to hear more about all the candidates, including GPU and 66 Coin. Let the best coin win!
I didn't say any is a better fit than another one! I just said they may be in the same situation as 66 Coin (which has a developer but that is not enough, we have miners, pools and even are on 3 exchanges at the moment, used to be cryptorush as well but... oh, well...). At any rate without something useful to do with the coin interest in it dies in time and the value will continuously drop, as soon as there is something to use them for (other than selling for BTC) they start to circulate both ways and should be able to self-sustain!
ANNOUNCEMENT
After voting we will still have to see if the people from GPUcoin really want this takeover and cooperate with us. If not, it will logically fall of the list.
I have to say, that our foundation is about patching up deserted coins, so if there is nothing to patch up with GPUcoin, we will move on to the number 2 coin quickly anyway
wow... gpucoin a non dead coin, is winning the vote...
This is a bit deceiving to say the least. This coin isn't dying because of lack of manpower, but essentially because it doesn't interest anybody except those who hold large bag of gpuc.
I thought the foundation would concentrate on more special coin (meaning other than scrypt and scrypt-n)
Reviving a coin means more than just patching the wallet, if it were just patching the wallet there would not be need for a foundation for this.
You have to get new members involved and increase interest in the coin to the point it can start having it's own life (like getting it accepted at a shop). This way the price will vary in time in both directions thus giving the coin an oscillating value or "pulse" if you will. If the only thing you can do with a coin is sell it for BTC than it's a dead coin the way I see it because the price will only go 1 way and that's down... and it needs reviving (a pulse).
No amount of wallet patching will get a coin a reason for existing, once a coin has a shop which accepts I think it can go on with it's own life and we can move to the next one... if it dies again maybe that the coin was not good all along.
This is the way I see things, I may be wrong though, but I stand by my vision that fixing the wallet alone is not enough to call a coin revived!
Edit: Oh, and if you think patching is enough, you are wrong, I tried just patching with 66 Coin... so here's a bit of history...
66 Coin used to be just fine and going pretty well... difficulty was going up and down, prices were around 15 BTC/66 and things were fine, than, I think it got added to a multipool and the difficulty spiked hugely (tens of times) up to a point nobody wanted to mine it anymore, Somebody still did... once I saw block were being found I joined the effort and dropped the difficulty lower... but at this point the network was almost dead... 2 pools dropped out, the other one was not mining, I think we were just 2, maybe 3 people in the whole network solo-mining each. Prices also dropped because I guess the multipoolers sold the coins they mined!
I patched the wallet and put up the update because the original developers abandoned it... I added KGW to it so this would not happen anymore, I also continued to patch the coin and add stuff to it but prices are continuing to drop because although there were hundreds, possibly thousands of miners originally for this coin after such a long period of inactivity nobody wanted to trust it anymore.
I think this is very likely to happen with other coins as well, so as long as there's no real purpose for the coin just patching it will not revive it, will just make it's coma stage last longer!
Poll
