bit1
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
|
 |
June 19, 2014, 09:13:03 PM |
|
_______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________ Minerals POW stage has ended. If you are still hashing at this pool your hashes have been redirected to http://multipool.minerals.pro. Please, make sure you register there otherwise you will not receive any coins as your connection to the stratum will be rejected. This pool will close in 3 days (Sunday 22 June, 11pm GMT). Please, withdraw all your funds by that time _______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________ dev, I dont have support in: dev@minerals.pro , I cant login to scv.minerals.pro(old pool) to withdraw funds, would you help me please? I sent you emails and a messsage here in bitcointalk (MY MESSAGES). thanks _______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________ Dev, thanks for respond (My Message), I'm using same credentials in both pools (old&new) in multipool all is ok, but in old pool I can't access, deleted cookies, temporary files, and I can´t withdraw funds for myself, please check (My Messages again). Try different browser +1 and try to clear your browser's cache. _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________ Thank you guys! Dev found problem ,Thanks Dev! fixed!!! all is ok now!!! keep going minerals!!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Bitcoin network protocol was designed to be extremely flexible. It can be used to create timed transactions, escrow transactions, multi-signature transactions, etc. The current features of the client only hint at what will be possible in the future.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
mrp1
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 50
Merit: 0
|
|
June 19, 2014, 09:15:55 PM |
|
am i the only one seeing the irony here ? here's a coin whose sole goal was exclusion... exclusion of the pools, exclusion of the exchanges... pretty much total control of every aspect of mining and trading... and now that some of the exchanges have decided to exclude this coin, suddenly there is bitching and moaning ? irony  ))))))) Also you need to get your facts straight. At no point have exchanges been excluded. Early on the dev was happy to give source to exchanges willing to add minerals. How do you think the coin was added to C-Cex?? a sweetheart deal is how it was added to c-cex... small exchange, easy to control volume... like i said, this coin is all about "control"... controlling the participation, controlling the hashrate, and controlling which exchange is allowed to trade this and when, and excluding anyone and everyone that doesn't fit with that model... it was made clear from the beginning, for example, that this coin will not be on bittrex during the pow stage... so they were excluded... if i ran bittrex, right about now i would be giving a very "cold shoulder" response to this coin in public (which is kind of what they're doing), while in private i would be thinking - go screw yourself... This coin is about showing how a coin can have fair distribution if pools are willing to limit mining farms and big hashers. If anything, pools introduce control. why do you think so many coins are threatened by 51% attack. It is because pools, unwilling to limit miners gain 51% of the network. Now isn't 51% a controlling stake in the network? This coin has really opened my eyes to the greed mentality some pools have. I will be staying well clear of these particular pools in the future. this has me more confused then anything i have read so far... if one entity controlling 51 percent of total hash is bad, then how is one entity controlling the entire mining process a "fair distribution" ? WOW, Suggest you get your FACTS correct before you make to much more of a fool of yourself... READ then entire thread !! This coin has had the fairest distribution of ANY to date PERIOD!!! Why do you think the powers that be as SO PISSED... |
|
|
|
|
|
powersup
|
|
June 19, 2014, 09:24:32 PM |
|
am i the only one seeing the irony here ? here's a coin whose sole goal was exclusion... exclusion of the pools, exclusion of the exchanges... pretty much total control of every aspect of mining and trading... and now that some of the exchanges have decided to exclude this coin, suddenly there is bitching and moaning ? irony ))))))) Also you need to get your facts straight. At no point have exchanges been excluded. Early on the dev was happy to give source to exchanges willing to add minerals. How do you think the coin was added to C-Cex?? a sweetheart deal is how it was added to c-cex... small exchange, easy to control volume... like i said, this coin is all about "control"... controlling the participation, controlling the hashrate, and controlling which exchange is allowed to trade this and when, and excluding anyone and everyone that doesn't fit with that model... it was made clear from the beginning, for example, that this coin will not be on bittrex during the pow stage... so they were excluded... if i ran bittrex, right about now i would be giving a very "cold shoulder" response to this coin in public (which is kind of what they're doing), while in private i would be thinking - go screw yourself... This coin is about showing how a coin can have fair distribution if pools are willing to limit mining farms and big hashers. If anything, pools introduce control. why do you think so many coins are threatened by 51% attack. It is because pools, unwilling to limit miners gain 51% of the network. Now isn't 51% a controlling stake in the network? This coin has really opened my eyes to the greed mentality some pools have. I will be staying well clear of these particular pools in the future. this has me more confused then anything i have read so far... if one entity controlling 51 percent of total hash is bad, then how is one entity controlling the entire mining process a "fair distribution" ? Because it prevented large mining farms and big hashes from gaining a controlling stake in the coin. |
|
|
|
|
jc12345
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1638
Merit: 1013
|
|
June 19, 2014, 09:24:48 PM |
|
it was made clear from the beginning, for example, that this coin will not be on bittrex during the pow stage... so they were excluded...
if i ran bittrex, right about now i would be giving a very "cold shoulder" response to this coin in public (which is kind of what they're doing), while in private i would be thinking - go screw yourself... Do you know who did make it clear? If not.. read about first.. and then continue to talk (as it is bullshit atm). this trollie is talking rubbish do us all a favour and read the thread lad you're only mqking yourself look like a pratt, everyone on here can read the truth for themselves i don't know i'm reading the thread, and i do not see anything that will make my points invalid... bittrex wants an open source wallet hosted on github, it's their policy... if you don't have one, even if only for the POW - you exclude bittrex from trading this coin... fact - check... after two days of bombardment of their chatroom, coin is still not on that particular exchange... fact - check... which fact am i missing ? You are missing this fact: Mycoin is trading on Bittrex (and Mintpal for that matter). There is also Faircoin that can be placed under this banner. Mycoin and Faircoin were premined and "fairly" distributed. Does anyone really know the detail of those distributions? Was the distribution process not handled by the dev teams? Min also had a fair distribution just with a new and more efficient method. Why should innovation be penalised? There is a risk though to the Min way of fair distribution and that is that if the method catches on, then large pools will lose out on mining by the big whale farms. If limitation of hash rate becomes the norm, in order to give the small miners a chance to get some coins, then the bigger pools will lose money. It is in the interest of the bigger pools to fight the Min way of fair distribution. The 2 coins mentioned above are on the bigger exchanges, so Min should be listed too and not be discriminated against for using a new method of fair distribution. Fact, check. |
|
|
|
|
|
zhulick
|
|
June 19, 2014, 09:26:23 PM |
|
am i the only one seeing the irony here ? here's a coin whose sole goal was exclusion... exclusion of the pools, exclusion of the exchanges... pretty much total control of every aspect of mining and trading... and now that some of the exchanges have decided to exclude this coin, suddenly there is bitching and moaning ? irony ))))))) Also you need to get your facts straight. At no point have exchanges been excluded. Early on the dev was happy to give source to exchanges willing to add minerals. How do you think the coin was added to C-Cex?? a sweetheart deal is how it was added to c-cex... small exchange, easy to control volume... like i said, this coin is all about "control"... controlling the participation, controlling the hashrate, and controlling which exchange is allowed to trade this and when, and excluding anyone and everyone that doesn't fit with that model... it was made clear from the beginning, for example, that this coin will not be on bittrex during the pow stage... so they were excluded... if i ran bittrex, right about now i would be giving a very "cold shoulder" response to this coin in public (which is kind of what they're doing), while in private i would be thinking - go screw yourself... This coin is about showing how a coin can have fair distribution if pools are willing to limit mining farms and big hashers. If anything, pools introduce control. why do you think so many coins are threatened by 51% attack. It is because pools, unwilling to limit miners gain 51% of the network. Now isn't 51% a controlling stake in the network? This coin has really opened my eyes to the greed mentality some pools have. I will be staying well clear of these particular pools in the future. this has me more confused then anything i have read so far... if one entity controlling 51 percent of total hash is bad, then how is one entity controlling the entire mining process a "fair distribution" ? WOW, Suggest you get your FACTS correct before you make to much more of a fool of yourself... READ then entire thread !! This coin has had the fairest distribution of ANY to date PERIOD!!! Why do you think the powers that be as SO PISSED... i got my facts from this thread... there is one entity that controls all of the mining pools... so again, if 51 percent attacks are such a big deal, how is 100 percent control of all mining a fair distribution... please, less accusations, and more actual answers |
|
|
|
|
zlobaio
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 24
Merit: 0
|
|
June 19, 2014, 09:30:15 PM |
|
what is this c-cex exchange, I can see negative balance, no confirm button on sell ot buy, now I tried to withdrawal some btc and it is not doing it ..
[MIN] Minerals 22393 POW: 74.15099844 POS: 0.00978325 26928719 2014-06-20 00:01:21 2014-06-20 00:01:21 Ok here is what c-cex listed for wallet status .. Is this okay |
|
|
|
|
mrp1
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 50
Merit: 0
|
|
June 19, 2014, 09:34:42 PM |
|
am i the only one seeing the irony here ? here's a coin whose sole goal was exclusion... exclusion of the pools, exclusion of the exchanges... pretty much total control of every aspect of mining and trading... and now that some of the exchanges have decided to exclude this coin, suddenly there is bitching and moaning ? irony ))))))) Also you need to get your facts straight. At no point have exchanges been excluded. Early on the dev was happy to give source to exchanges willing to add minerals. How do you think the coin was added to C-Cex?? a sweetheart deal is how it was added to c-cex... small exchange, easy to control volume... like i said, this coin is all about "control"... controlling the participation, controlling the hashrate, and controlling which exchange is allowed to trade this and when, and excluding anyone and everyone that doesn't fit with that model... it was made clear from the beginning, for example, that this coin will not be on bittrex during the pow stage... so they were excluded... if i ran bittrex, right about now i would be giving a very "cold shoulder" response to this coin in public (which is kind of what they're doing), while in private i would be thinking - go screw yourself... This coin is about showing how a coin can have fair distribution if pools are willing to limit mining farms and big hashers. If anything, pools introduce control. why do you think so many coins are threatened by 51% attack. It is because pools, unwilling to limit miners gain 51% of the network. Now isn't 51% a controlling stake in the network? This coin has really opened my eyes to the greed mentality some pools have. I will be staying well clear of these particular pools in the future. this has me more confused then anything i have read so far... if one entity controlling 51 percent of total hash is bad, then how is one entity controlling the entire mining process a "fair distribution" ? WOW, Suggest you get your FACTS correct before you make to much more of a fool of yourself... READ then entire thread !! This coin has had the fairest distribution of ANY to date PERIOD!!! Why do you think the powers that be as SO PISSED... i got my facts from this thread... there is one entity that controls all of the mining pools... so again, if 51 percent attacks are such a big deal, how is 100 percent control of all mining a fair distribution... please, less accusations, and more actual answers AGAIN, Read.... MINING HAS ENDED !!! POW IS OVER !!! Coins were mined by "individuals" using <50MHs per ACCOUNT !!! Farms were EXCLUDED !!! Coins are now WIDELY distributed rather in the hands of the 1% !!!! Lazy people are ANNOYING.. |
|
|
|
|
|
zhulick
|
|
June 19, 2014, 09:35:41 PM |
|
it was made clear from the beginning, for example, that this coin will not be on bittrex during the pow stage... so they were excluded...
if i ran bittrex, right about now i would be giving a very "cold shoulder" response to this coin in public (which is kind of what they're doing), while in private i would be thinking - go screw yourself... Do you know who did make it clear? If not.. read about first.. and then continue to talk (as it is bullshit atm). this trollie is talking rubbish do us all a favour and read the thread lad you're only mqking yourself look like a pratt, everyone on here can read the truth for themselves i don't know i'm reading the thread, and i do not see anything that will make my points invalid... bittrex wants an open source wallet hosted on github, it's their policy... if you don't have one, even if only for the POW - you exclude bittrex from trading this coin... fact - check... after two days of bombardment of their chatroom, coin is still not on that particular exchange... fact - check... which fact am i missing ? You are missing this fact: Mycoin is trading on Bittrex (and Mintpal for that matter). There is also Faircoin that can be placed under this banner. Mycoin and Faircoin were premined and "fairly" distributed. Does anyone really know the detail of those distributions? Was the distribution process not handled by the dev teams? Min also had a fair distribution just with a new and more efficient method. Why should innovation be penalised? There is a risk though to the Min way of fair distribution and that is that if the method catches on, then large pools will lose out on mining by the big whale farms. If limitation of hash rate becomes the norm, in order to give the small miners a chance to get some coins, then the bigger pools will lose money. It is in the interest of the bigger pools to fight the Min way of fair distribution. The 2 coins mentioned above are on the bigger exchanges, so Min should be listed too and not be discriminated against for using a new method of fair distribution. Fact, check. i followed both coins very briefly, so i am not sure of all the details.. if i recall correctly, both coins were pure pos... and i do not recall these coins having a pow phase where they flat out said - you can't mine this because you're too big, or a different pool etc... point is, there was no defined exclusion of anyone... that is a fair distribution... having one entity control the entire mining process, while deciding who can and cannot participate - not really a fair distribution |
|
|
|
|
MinermanNC
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2198
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 19, 2014, 09:38:43 PM |
|
am i the only one seeing the irony here ? here's a coin whose sole goal was exclusion... exclusion of the pools, exclusion of the exchanges... pretty much total control of every aspect of mining and trading... and now that some of the exchanges have decided to exclude this coin, suddenly there is bitching and moaning ? irony ))))))) Also you need to get your facts straight. At no point have exchanges been excluded. Early on the dev was happy to give source to exchanges willing to add minerals. How do you think the coin was added to C-Cex?? a sweetheart deal is how it was added to c-cex... small exchange, easy to control volume... like i said, this coin is all about "control"... controlling the participation, controlling the hashrate, and controlling which exchange is allowed to trade this and when, and excluding anyone and everyone that doesn't fit with that model... it was made clear from the beginning, for example, that this coin will not be on bittrex during the pow stage... so they were excluded... if i ran bittrex, right about now i would be giving a very "cold shoulder" response to this coin in public (which is kind of what they're doing), while in private i would be thinking - go screw yourself... I see it a bit differently. more like here it is world, if anyone wants to participate in this coin this way your free to. So that's what I did because I like what the dev is doing, I liked mining on his clean and efficient pools, and felt I got a fair share for what I contributed in mining and its seems I'm not alone. Now if Bittrex wants to hold off? which we don't know that in any way yet, other exchanges will come on one by one and more than likely be some bigger ones soon, eventually then bittrex and any others who may be snubbing this coin now will cave in,,, money talks bullshit walks |
*BTC: 1DiR25SPo84sThzTATr27EZEQZLt6hv6tG
|
|
|
jc12345
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1638
Merit: 1013
|
|
June 19, 2014, 09:39:54 PM |
|
am i the only one seeing the irony here ? here's a coin whose sole goal was exclusion... exclusion of the pools, exclusion of the exchanges... pretty much total control of every aspect of mining and trading... and now that some of the exchanges have decided to exclude this coin, suddenly there is bitching and moaning ? irony ))))))) Also you need to get your facts straight. At no point have exchanges been excluded. Early on the dev was happy to give source to exchanges willing to add minerals. How do you think the coin was added to C-Cex?? a sweetheart deal is how it was added to c-cex... small exchange, easy to control volume... like i said, this coin is all about "control"... controlling the participation, controlling the hashrate, and controlling which exchange is allowed to trade this and when, and excluding anyone and everyone that doesn't fit with that model... it was made clear from the beginning, for example, that this coin will not be on bittrex during the pow stage... so they were excluded... if i ran bittrex, right about now i would be giving a very "cold shoulder" response to this coin in public (which is kind of what they're doing), while in private i would be thinking - go screw yourself... This coin is about showing how a coin can have fair distribution if pools are willing to limit mining farms and big hashers. If anything, pools introduce control. why do you think so many coins are threatened by 51% attack. It is because pools, unwilling to limit miners gain 51% of the network. Now isn't 51% a controlling stake in the network? This coin has really opened my eyes to the greed mentality some pools have. I will be staying well clear of these particular pools in the future. this has me more confused then anything i have read so far... if one entity controlling 51 percent of total hash is bad, then how is one entity controlling the entire mining process a "fair distribution" ? WOW, Suggest you get your FACTS correct before you make to much more of a fool of yourself... READ then entire thread !! This coin has had the fairest distribution of ANY to date PERIOD!!! Why do you think the powers that be as SO PISSED... i got my facts from this thread... there is one entity that controls all of the mining pools... so again, if 51 percent attacks are such a big deal, how is 100 percent control of all mining a fair distribution... please, less accusations, and more actual answers Lets re-phrase it. Lets assume the definition of fair distribution is to have coins distributed more equally over more miners. Lets now take the following two examples: A 100 miners of which 5 have 800Mhs farms. No hash limitation. Big 800Mhs farms join the pools and by end of distribution phase you have 5 miners with 80% of the coins and 95 miners with 20% of the coins. B 100 miners of which 5 have 800MHs farms. Hash limitation. the 800MHs farms get kicked. They get pissed and move on to another coin to rape, pump and dump. By the end of distribution phase 95 miners have 100% of the coins in relation to there much smaller hash rates. Which of these two options had the fairest distribution? If all pools would play along and could be trusted, then the source could be given to all pools in faith that the pool will limit hash rates. If one pool goes rogue and drop the limitations the big farms and multipools move in to rape the coin and the whole launch is ruined. The other pools will have to drop limitations as well and the whole thing will move back to square one where the large farms rape the coin. The only way to ensure that no pool breaks rank and drop the limitations is to have a small number of pools under centralised control that can be monitored closely. This was a first experiment down this line. I am sure there could be better ways to do this in future, eg. to have a trusted third party (almost like escrow) providing a pool service where the pool management can be segregated from the dev team but still be run in a centralised fashion. That 3rd party will then have to make sure that no pool under its watch breaks rank. The Min method of fair distribution might just be the way of the future. |
|
|
|
|
|
Bfljosh
|
|
June 19, 2014, 09:42:24 PM |
|
it was made clear from the beginning, for example, that this coin will not be on bittrex during the pow stage... so they were excluded...
if i ran bittrex, right about now i would be giving a very "cold shoulder" response to this coin in public (which is kind of what they're doing), while in private i would be thinking - go screw yourself... Do you know who did make it clear? If not.. read about first.. and then continue to talk (as it is bullshit atm). this trollie is talking rubbish do us all a favour and read the thread lad you're only mqking yourself look like a pratt, everyone on here can read the truth for themselves i don't know i'm reading the thread, and i do not see anything that will make my points invalid... bittrex wants an open source wallet hosted on github, it's their policy... if you don't have one, even if only for the POW - you exclude bittrex from trading this coin... fact - check... after two days of bombardment of their chatroom, coin is still not on that particular exchange... fact - check... which fact am i missing ? You are missing this fact: Mycoin is trading on Bittrex (and Mintpal for that matter). There is also Faircoin that can be placed under this banner. Mycoin and Faircoin were premined and "fairly" distributed. Does anyone really know the detail of those distributions? Was the distribution process not handled by the dev teams? Min also had a fair distribution just with a new and more efficient method. Why should innovation be penalised? There is a risk though to the Min way of fair distribution and that is that if the method catches on, then large pools will lose out on mining by the big whale farms. If limitation of hash rate becomes the norm, in order to give the small miners a chance to get some coins, then the bigger pools will lose money. It is in the interest of the bigger pools to fight the Min way of fair distribution. The 2 coins mentioned above are on the bigger exchanges, so Min should be listed too and not be discriminated against for using a new method of fair distribution. Fact, check. i followed both coins very briefly, so i am not sure of all the details.. if i recall correctly, both coins were pure pos... and i do not recall these coins having a pow phase where they flat out said - you can't mine this because you're too big, or a different pool etc... point is, there was no defined exclusion of anyone... that is a fair distribution... having one entity control the entire mining process, while deciding who can and cannot participate - not really a fair distribution When you give out wallets to more parties there will be abusers that mine with more than 50 mh/s (solomining) |
|
|
|
|
jc12345
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1638
Merit: 1013
|
|
June 19, 2014, 09:43:23 PM |
|
it was made clear from the beginning, for example, that this coin will not be on bittrex during the pow stage... so they were excluded...
if i ran bittrex, right about now i would be giving a very "cold shoulder" response to this coin in public (which is kind of what they're doing), while in private i would be thinking - go screw yourself... Do you know who did make it clear? If not.. read about first.. and then continue to talk (as it is bullshit atm). this trollie is talking rubbish do us all a favour and read the thread lad you're only mqking yourself look like a pratt, everyone on here can read the truth for themselves i don't know i'm reading the thread, and i do not see anything that will make my points invalid... bittrex wants an open source wallet hosted on github, it's their policy... if you don't have one, even if only for the POW - you exclude bittrex from trading this coin... fact - check... after two days of bombardment of their chatroom, coin is still not on that particular exchange... fact - check... which fact am i missing ? You are missing this fact: Mycoin is trading on Bittrex (and Mintpal for that matter). There is also Faircoin that can be placed under this banner. Mycoin and Faircoin were premined and "fairly" distributed. Does anyone really know the detail of those distributions? Was the distribution process not handled by the dev teams? Min also had a fair distribution just with a new and more efficient method. Why should innovation be penalised? There is a risk though to the Min way of fair distribution and that is that if the method catches on, then large pools will lose out on mining by the big whale farms. If limitation of hash rate becomes the norm, in order to give the small miners a chance to get some coins, then the bigger pools will lose money. It is in the interest of the bigger pools to fight the Min way of fair distribution. The 2 coins mentioned above are on the bigger exchanges, so Min should be listed too and not be discriminated against for using a new method of fair distribution. Fact, check. i followed both coins very briefly, so i am not sure of all the details.. if i recall correctly, both coins were pure pos... and i do not recall these coins having a pow phase where they flat out said - you can't mine this because you're too big, or a different pool etc... point is, there was no defined exclusion of anyone... that is a fair distribution... having one entity control the entire mining process, while deciding who can and cannot participate - not really a fair distribution A fair distribution is not by excluding anyone, just excluding excessive abuse of the system. A miner with a big farm does not have to be excluded. He can mine it with <50Mhs of his farm, but the big farms might choose to move on to rape another coin out of their own choosing. No one excluded those miners, only their excessive hash rates in order for the coins to be more fairly and evenly distributed among all the miners. |
|
|
|
|
PeterPalmBeach
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
SellALL, BuyBTC
|
|
June 19, 2014, 09:44:22 PM |
|
Earlier I contacted coins-e and here is the response I got: Hi PeterPalmBeach, Looks like a good coin. Here ya go: https://www.coins-e.com/exchange/MIN_BTC/Kind regards, Jessica edit: dev, please add to OP. Thanks |
|
|
|
|
|
slavo
|
|
June 19, 2014, 09:45:06 PM |
|
someone want to challenge a platinium noob for 500min ? I take everybody from gold to diamond (i'm more of a top gold than platinium in fact) bet is for now; because i'm stoned to the bone  |
|
|
|
|
MinermanNC
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2198
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 19, 2014, 09:45:39 PM |
|
am i the only one seeing the irony here ? here's a coin whose sole goal was exclusion... exclusion of the pools, exclusion of the exchanges... pretty much total control of every aspect of mining and trading... and now that some of the exchanges have decided to exclude this coin, suddenly there is bitching and moaning ? irony ))))))) Also you need to get your facts straight. At no point have exchanges been excluded. Early on the dev was happy to give source to exchanges willing to add minerals. How do you think the coin was added to C-Cex?? a sweetheart deal is how it was added to c-cex... small exchange, easy to control volume... like i said, this coin is all about "control"... controlling the participation, controlling the hashrate, and controlling which exchange is allowed to trade this and when, and excluding anyone and everyone that doesn't fit with that model... it was made clear from the beginning, for example, that this coin will not be on bittrex during the pow stage... so they were excluded... if i ran bittrex, right about now i would be giving a very "cold shoulder" response to this coin in public (which is kind of what they're doing), while in private i would be thinking - go screw yourself... This coin is about showing how a coin can have fair distribution if pools are willing to limit mining farms and big hashers. If anything, pools introduce control. why do you think so many coins are threatened by 51% attack. It is because pools, unwilling to limit miners gain 51% of the network. Now isn't 51% a controlling stake in the network? This coin has really opened my eyes to the greed mentality some pools have. I will be staying well clear of these particular pools in the future. this has me more confused then anything i have read so far... if one entity controlling 51 percent of total hash is bad, then how is one entity controlling the entire mining process a "fair distribution" ? WOW, Suggest you get your FACTS correct before you make to much more of a fool of yourself... READ then entire thread !! This coin has had the fairest distribution of ANY to date PERIOD!!! Why do you think the powers that be as SO PISSED... i got my facts from this thread... there is one entity that controls all of the mining pools... so again, if 51 percent attacks are such a big deal, how is 100 percent control of all mining a fair distribution... please, less accusations, and more actual answers Lets re-phrase it. Lets assume the definition of fair distribution is to have coins distributed more equally over more miners. Lets now take the following two examples: A 100 miners of which 5 have 800Mhs farms. No hash limitation. Big 800Mhs farms join the pools and by end of distribution phase you have 5 miners with 80% of the coins and 95 miners with 20% of the coins. B 100 miners of which 5 have 800MHs farms. Hash limitation. the 800MHs farms get kicked. They get pissed and move on to another coin to rape, pump and dump. By the end of distribution phase 95 miners have 100% of the coins in relation to there much smaller hash rates. Which of these two options had the fairest distribution? If all pools would play along and could be trusted, then the source could be given to all pools in faith that the pool will limit hash rates. If one pool goes rogue and drop the limitations the big farms and multipools move in to rape the coin and the whole launch is ruined. The other pools will have to drop limitations as well and the whole thing will move back to square one where the large farms rape the coin. The only way to ensure that no pool breaks rank and drop the limitations is to have a small number of pools under centralised control that can be monitored closely. This was a first experiment down this line. I am sure there could be better ways to do this in future, eg. to have a trusted third party (almost like escrow) providing a pool service where the pool management can be segregated from the dev team but still be run in a centralised fashion. That 3rd party will then have to make sure that no pool under its watch breaks rank. The Min method of fair distribution might just be the way of the future. Gosh I wish I had wrote that...perfect definition for the concept well said bro.  |
*BTC: 1DiR25SPo84sThzTATr27EZEQZLt6hv6tG
|
|
|
MinermanNC
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2198
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 19, 2014, 09:51:01 PM |
|
Earlier I contacted coins-e and here is the response I got: Hi PeterPalmBeach, Looks like a good coin. Here ya go: https://www.coins-e.com/exchange/MIN_BTC/Kind regards, Jessica edit: dev, please add to OP. Thanks Nice |
*BTC: 1DiR25SPo84sThzTATr27EZEQZLt6hv6tG
|
|
|
|
Bfljosh
|
|
June 19, 2014, 09:51:52 PM |
|
someone want to challenge a platinium noob for 500min ? I take everybody from gold to diamond (i'm more of a top gold than platinium in fact) bet is for now; because i'm stoned to the bone Sorry man, did not qualify yet this season. Stopped playing 6 months ago. But I look forward to watch tournaments. Would be awesome if we could set up a donation address to attract husky for commentary. This coin has HUGE potential. What if this coin sets the standard for future mining? |
|
|
|
|
|
zhulick
|
|
June 19, 2014, 09:52:10 PM |
|
am i the only one seeing the irony here ? here's a coin whose sole goal was exclusion... exclusion of the pools, exclusion of the exchanges... pretty much total control of every aspect of mining and trading... and now that some of the exchanges have decided to exclude this coin, suddenly there is bitching and moaning ? irony ))))))) Also you need to get your facts straight. At no point have exchanges been excluded. Early on the dev was happy to give source to exchanges willing to add minerals. How do you think the coin was added to C-Cex?? a sweetheart deal is how it was added to c-cex... small exchange, easy to control volume... like i said, this coin is all about "control"... controlling the participation, controlling the hashrate, and controlling which exchange is allowed to trade this and when, and excluding anyone and everyone that doesn't fit with that model... it was made clear from the beginning, for example, that this coin will not be on bittrex during the pow stage... so they were excluded... if i ran bittrex, right about now i would be giving a very "cold shoulder" response to this coin in public (which is kind of what they're doing), while in private i would be thinking - go screw yourself... This coin is about showing how a coin can have fair distribution if pools are willing to limit mining farms and big hashers. If anything, pools introduce control. why do you think so many coins are threatened by 51% attack. It is because pools, unwilling to limit miners gain 51% of the network. Now isn't 51% a controlling stake in the network? This coin has really opened my eyes to the greed mentality some pools have. I will be staying well clear of these particular pools in the future. this has me more confused then anything i have read so far... if one entity controlling 51 percent of total hash is bad, then how is one entity controlling the entire mining process a "fair distribution" ? WOW, Suggest you get your FACTS correct before you make to much more of a fool of yourself... READ then entire thread !! This coin has had the fairest distribution of ANY to date PERIOD!!! Why do you think the powers that be as SO PISSED... i got my facts from this thread... there is one entity that controls all of the mining pools... so again, if 51 percent attacks are such a big deal, how is 100 percent control of all mining a fair distribution... please, less accusations, and more actual answers Lets re-phrase it. Lets assume the definition of fair distribution is to have coins distributed more equally over more miners. Lets now take the following two examples: A 100 miners of which 5 have 800Mhs farms. No hash limitation. Big 800Mhs farms join the pools and by end of distribution phase you have 5 miners with 80% of the coins and 95 miners with 20% of the coins. B 100 miners of which 5 have 800MHs farms. Hash limitation. the 800MHs farms get kicked. They get pissed and move on to another coin to rape, pump and dump. By the end of distribution phase 95 miners have 100% of the coins in relation to there much smaller hash rates. Which of these two options had the fairest distribution? If all pools would play along and could be trusted, then the source could be given to all pools in faith that the pool will limit hash rates. If one pool goes rogue and drop the limitations the big farms and multipools move in to rape the coin and the whole launch is ruined. The other pools will have to drop limitations as well and the whole thing will move back to square one where the large farms rape the coin. The only way to ensure that no pool breaks rank and drop the limitations is to have a small number of pools under centralised control that can be monitored closely. This was a first experiment down this line. I am sure there could be better ways to do this in future, eg. to have a trusted third party (almost like escrow) providing a pool service where the pool management can be segregated from the dev team but still be run in a centralised fashion. That 3rd party will then have to make sure that no pool under its watch breaks rank. The Min method of fair distribution might just be the way of the future. you are a thousand percent correct, but only from a view of a small miner... yes, for a small miner not dealing with "predators" like farms and multipools is great... but does that make it a fair distribution ? again, the entire mining process was controlled (i added a d here, so that other guy won't flip out again) by one entity... and that one entity decided who is to be included or excluded from the process... once you have that, it is no longer a fair distribution... |
|
|
|
|
|
barryzand
|
|
June 19, 2014, 09:54:19 PM |
|
am i the only one seeing the irony here ? here's a coin whose sole goal was exclusion... exclusion of the pools, exclusion of the exchanges... pretty much total control of every aspect of mining and trading... and now that some of the exchanges have decided to exclude this coin, suddenly there is bitching and moaning ? irony ))))))) Also you need to get your facts straight. At no point have exchanges been excluded. Early on the dev was happy to give source to exchanges willing to add minerals. How do you think the coin was added to C-Cex?? a sweetheart deal is how it was added to c-cex... small exchange, easy to control volume... like i said, this coin is all about "control"... controlling the participation, controlling the hashrate, and controlling which exchange is allowed to trade this and when, and excluding anyone and everyone that doesn't fit with that model... it was made clear from the beginning, for example, that this coin will not be on bittrex during the pow stage... so they were excluded... if i ran bittrex, right about now i would be giving a very "cold shoulder" response to this coin in public (which is kind of what they're doing), while in private i would be thinking - go screw yourself... This coin is about showing how a coin can have fair distribution if pools are willing to limit mining farms and big hashers. If anything, pools introduce control. why do you think so many coins are threatened by 51% attack. It is because pools, unwilling to limit miners gain 51% of the network. Now isn't 51% a controlling stake in the network? This coin has really opened my eyes to the greed mentality some pools have. I will be staying well clear of these particular pools in the future. this has me more confused then anything i have read so far... if one entity controlling 51 percent of total hash is bad, then how is one entity controlling the entire mining process a "fair distribution" ? WOW, Suggest you get your FACTS correct before you make to much more of a fool of yourself... READ then entire thread !! This coin has had the fairest distribution of ANY to date PERIOD!!! Why do you think the powers that be as SO PISSED... i got my facts from this thread... there is one entity that controls all of the mining pools... so again, if 51 percent attacks are such a big deal, how is 100 percent control of all mining a fair distribution... please, less accusations, and more actual answers Lets re-phrase it. Lets assume the definition of fair distribution is to have coins distributed more equally over more miners. Lets now take the following two examples: A 100 miners of which 5 have 800Mhs farms. No hash limitation. Big 800Mhs farms join the pools and by end of distribution phase you have 5 miners with 80% of the coins and 95 miners with 20% of the coins. B 100 miners of which 5 have 800MHs farms. Hash limitation. the 800MHs farms get kicked. They get pissed and move on to another coin to rape, pump and dump. By the end of distribution phase 95 miners have 100% of the coins in relation to there much smaller hash rates. Which of these two options had the fairest distribution? If all pools would play along and could be trusted, then the source could be given to all pools in faith that the pool will limit hash rates. If one pool goes rogue and drop the limitations the big farms and multipools move in to rape the coin and the whole launch is ruined. The other pools will have to drop limitations as well and the whole thing will move back to square one where the large farms rape the coin. The only way to ensure that no pool breaks rank and drop the limitations is to have a small number of pools under centralised control that can be monitored closely. This was a first experiment down this line. I am sure there could be better ways to do this in future, eg. to have a trusted third party (almost like escrow) providing a pool service where the pool management can be segregated from the dev team but still be run in a centralised fashion. That 3rd party will then have to make sure that no pool under its watch breaks rank. The Min method of fair distribution might just be the way of the future. you are a thousand percent correct, but only from a view of a small miner... yes, for a small miner not dealing with "predators" like farms and multipools is great... but does that make it a fair distribution ? again, the entire mining process was controlled (i added a d here, so that other guy won't flip out again) by one entity... and that one entity decided who is to be included or excluded from the process... once you have that, it is no longer a fair distribution... dude... the big miners could have joined with a 50mhs rig as well... if they wanted a piece of a fair coin... they would have done that |
|
|
|
|
|
zhulick
|
|
June 19, 2014, 09:56:33 PM |
|
am i the only one seeing the irony here ? here's a coin whose sole goal was exclusion... exclusion of the pools, exclusion of the exchanges... pretty much total control of every aspect of mining and trading... and now that some of the exchanges have decided to exclude this coin, suddenly there is bitching and moaning ? irony ))))))) Also you need to get your facts straight. At no point have exchanges been excluded. Early on the dev was happy to give source to exchanges willing to add minerals. How do you think the coin was added to C-Cex?? a sweetheart deal is how it was added to c-cex... small exchange, easy to control volume... like i said, this coin is all about "control"... controlling the participation, controlling the hashrate, and controlling which exchange is allowed to trade this and when, and excluding anyone and everyone that doesn't fit with that model... it was made clear from the beginning, for example, that this coin will not be on bittrex during the pow stage... so they were excluded... if i ran bittrex, right about now i would be giving a very "cold shoulder" response to this coin in public (which is kind of what they're doing), while in private i would be thinking - go screw yourself... This coin is about showing how a coin can have fair distribution if pools are willing to limit mining farms and big hashers. If anything, pools introduce control. why do you think so many coins are threatened by 51% attack. It is because pools, unwilling to limit miners gain 51% of the network. Now isn't 51% a controlling stake in the network? This coin has really opened my eyes to the greed mentality some pools have. I will be staying well clear of these particular pools in the future. this has me more confused then anything i have read so far... if one entity controlling 51 percent of total hash is bad, then how is one entity controlling the entire mining process a "fair distribution" ? WOW, Suggest you get your FACTS correct before you make to much more of a fool of yourself... READ then entire thread !! This coin has had the fairest distribution of ANY to date PERIOD!!! Why do you think the powers that be as SO PISSED... i got my facts from this thread... there is one entity that controls all of the mining pools... so again, if 51 percent attacks are such a big deal, how is 100 percent control of all mining a fair distribution... please, less accusations, and more actual answers Lets re-phrase it. Lets assume the definition of fair distribution is to have coins distributed more equally over more miners. Lets now take the following two examples: A 100 miners of which 5 have 800Mhs farms. No hash limitation. Big 800Mhs farms join the pools and by end of distribution phase you have 5 miners with 80% of the coins and 95 miners with 20% of the coins. B 100 miners of which 5 have 800MHs farms. Hash limitation. the 800MHs farms get kicked. They get pissed and move on to another coin to rape, pump and dump. By the end of distribution phase 95 miners have 100% of the coins in relation to there much smaller hash rates. Which of these two options had the fairest distribution? If all pools would play along and could be trusted, then the source could be given to all pools in faith that the pool will limit hash rates. If one pool goes rogue and drop the limitations the big farms and multipools move in to rape the coin and the whole launch is ruined. The other pools will have to drop limitations as well and the whole thing will move back to square one where the large farms rape the coin. The only way to ensure that no pool breaks rank and drop the limitations is to have a small number of pools under centralised control that can be monitored closely. This was a first experiment down this line. I am sure there could be better ways to do this in future, eg. to have a trusted third party (almost like escrow) providing a pool service where the pool management can be segregated from the dev team but still be run in a centralised fashion. That 3rd party will then have to make sure that no pool under its watch breaks rank. The Min method of fair distribution might just be the way of the future. you are a thousand percent correct, but only from a view of a small miner... yes, for a small miner not dealing with "predators" like farms and multipools is great... but does that make it a fair distribution ? again, the entire mining process was controlled (i added a d here, so that other guy won't flip out again) by one entity... and that one entity decided who is to be included or excluded from the process... once you have that, it is no longer a fair distribution... dude... the big miners could have joined with a 50mhs rig as well... if they wanted a piece of a fair coin... they would have done that why would they ? would you ever get involved with a venture that is specifically setup to ostricize you and paint you as evil ? |
|
|
|
|
|
Poll
