[Ultracoin] [Est. Feb 2014] ~ ASIC Resistant & Ultrafast 6 Second Transactions!

[Vlad2Vlad]

Bravo on the decrease in inflation.

I don't get why that's so complicated.

Every successful corporation spends billions per year to cut back dilution which is what a cut in subsidy and/or max cap supply is.

This is basic supply an demand and shouldn't even need an explanation.  Staying true to a code which dilutes you into oblivion or kills future investor value is absurd.

And miners won't drop off any more than if you decided to add 100 trillion coins.  The lower supply will result in an equal increase in price (when demand eventually increases) so miners will remain the same. 

Glad the devs here made the right economic decision regarding the future inflation of this coin.


Cheers!

[NineEleven]

Bravo on the decrease in inflation.

I don't get why that's so complicated.

Every successful corporation spends billions per year to cut back dilution which is what a cut in subsidy and/or max cap supply is.

This is basic supply an demand and shouldn't even need an explanation.  Staying true to a code which dilutes you into oblivion or kills future investor value is absurd.

And miners won't drop off any more than if you decided to add 100 trillion coins.  The lower supply will result in an equal increase in price (when demand eventually increases) so miners will remain the same. 

Glad the devs here made the right economic decision regarding the future inflation of this coin.


Cheers!

let me ask you some question

From the investor point of view waht is the diference betewen 1 milion at 10000 satoshi  vs 10 milion at 1000 satoshi?

 think its the same

But from the acces to the coin  ( from new users ) its a huge diference .

lets take by example, if BTC price was 10 dolars , many new useres wil try it, its cheap lets play whit it a litle bit, but whit BTC at 1200 dolars ,thats a compleet diferente story..


of course the crypto coins can be spilt  in 100 000 0000 units, but  its not the same thing


I prefer a coin whith easy access.

[Beave162]

Bravo on the decrease in inflation.

I don't get why that's so complicated.

Every successful corporation spends billions per year to cut back dilution which is what a cut in subsidy and/or max cap supply is.

This is basic supply an demand and shouldn't even need an explanation.  Staying true to a code which dilutes you into oblivion or kills future investor value is absurd.

And miners won't drop off any more than if you decided to add 100 trillion coins.  The lower supply will result in an equal increase in price (when demand eventually increases) so miners will remain the same.  

Glad the devs here made the right economic decision regarding the future inflation of this coin.

Cheers!

I WILL beat the hell out of this dead horse.

Gentlemen. Coin generation rate means nothing. Do you understand initial pricing on exchanges?

2,880,000 MYR per day x 0.00000500 MYR/BTC = 14.4BTC buy support to maintain 500 MYR assuming every miner dumps every day.

14.4BTC buy support. That's it. You can start to worry when the daily Mintpal volume approaches this number.

How do you increase the value of a coin? You give people reasons to inject their BTC in it. You don't artificially lower the coin generation rate. The innovation alone in this coin gave me a reason to inject my BTC into it on Poloniex. Now, we are doing as much as possible to build projects around Myriad so people feel confident acquiring MYR at a healthy rate.

If you artificially lower the coin generation rate, the price may "rise" initially to a proportional level (which is morally objectionable to even do in the first place), but then you still need the same number of BTC to sustain it at that level. The artificial price rise is equivalent to a pump and offers nothing to the coin except unfair advantage to everyone mining this coin in its early days.

If you invested 1BTC into Litecoin and 1BTC into Myriadcoin, you would need both to increase 100% to get 2BTC despite their relative price difference against BTC. LTC would need to jump from 0.025 LTC/BTC to 0.05 LTC/BTC while MYR would need to jump from 0.00000575 MYR/BTC to 0.00001050 MYR/BTC. Using this logic, I would actually argue that LTC's coin creation rate is way too high because we've only seen it hit 0.05 LTC/BTC once on a glorious pump. There clearly is not enough buy demand to sustain LTC anywhere above 0.03BTC

Argument over.

I will expound in my own words...
Let's make some favorable assumptions for the 'inflation steals value, period' argument:

1) Every single miner of UTC is mining and dumping as long as it is profitable to do so (Not a smart assumption. I know for a fact that it isn't true with YACoin because I mine it personally, and I hold all of those YACs)

2) If you take a snapshot of the UTC price right now, it is at the minimum price that is currently profitable to mine-and-dump.

3) All current miners are completely LOYAL, and they will mine and hold until reaching the same, constant profitability.

So with these favorable assumptions, let's say the block reward is reduced from 30 to 10 UTC per block (per minute). Supply and demand right? Since the miners are completely loyal, the difficulty is unchanged, and no one will be dumping the coin until the coin has reached triple the price. The demand will also be unchanged (another assumption), so the same buy support will still be there to maintain that level. Oh wait, but you have a lot of sell orders on the books between the current price and triple the current price, so let's make another assumption that every single buy order is removed. So you just used a little supply-and-demand logic and blasted the price up 3-fold concordantly with the 3-fold decrease in block rewards. UTC will have jumped from #150 to #87 in total marketcap. It will still be behind a YACoin clone, which has not manipulated the reward structure at all since inception, but people have different ideas of success.

UTC will prove that the marketcap/price of a coin can simply be manipulated by a dev team changing the reward structure. The news of this plan working perfectly will resonate throughout the crypto world and with economists everywhere. UTC would even prove Austrian economists wrong who claim central planning and manipulation of the money supply just doesn't work. Bitcoin will then have to reduce its block reward as well. Of course, the obvious question that will come next is: if it worked reducing the reward from 30 to 10, why not go from 10 to 1? Or 10 to 0.00000000001. Just make that supply side near zero? Right? Simple.

I will tell you my prediction. First, there will be people completely dumping the coin because they don't want to be invested in a coin that is manipulated like that. I'm sure there will be some people buying UTC anticipating a 'pump'--a pump is a pump artificial or not. However, the coin will NOT reach the triple price-point because 1) You will have a lot of sell orders to burn through of people turning a great profit 2) Mine-and-dumpers will continue to mine-and-dump because the difficulty will drop as necessary for miners to be able to turn a profit. A lot of disenchanted miners will look at other coins, which YAC will thank you for. I believe these things are already happening as part of speculation.

rapture333, I think you know that you are really banking on MORE buy support with your change in the reward structure. I personally wouldn't invest in any coin where the money supply is centrally manipulated--even if the 'dev' earned 5 PhDs and legally changed his name to Friedrich Hayek.

Finally, the whole commentary above really ignores the END money supply. I get that your plan is more about addressing the long-term reward structure vs the short term? But you still say inflation is diluting the value. The long-term inflation is zero. So it seems to me you are really saying in such a statement is that the long-term marketcap of $321,000 [100,000,000 (total Ultracoins there will ever be) X $0.00321 (current price)] is too high. Think about that...

[rapture333]

Bravo on the decrease in inflation.

I don't get why that's so complicated.

Every successful corporation spends billions per year to cut back dilution which is what a cut in subsidy and/or max cap supply is.

This is basic supply an demand and shouldn't even need an explanation.  Staying true to a code which dilutes you into oblivion or kills future investor value is absurd.

And miners won't drop off any more than if you decided to add 100 trillion coins.  The lower supply will result in an equal increase in price (when demand eventually increases) so miners will remain the same.  

Glad the devs here made the right economic decision regarding the future inflation of this coin.

Cheers!

I WILL beat the hell out of this dead horse.

Gentlemen. Coin generation rate means nothing. Do you understand initial pricing on exchanges?

2,880,000 MYR per day x 0.00000500 MYR/BTC = 14.4BTC buy support to maintain 500 MYR assuming every miner dumps every day.

14.4BTC buy support. That's it. You can start to worry when the daily Mintpal volume approaches this number.

How do you increase the value of a coin? You give people reasons to inject their BTC in it. You don't artificially lower the coin generation rate. The innovation alone in this coin gave me a reason to inject my BTC into it on Poloniex. Now, we are doing as much as possible to build projects around Myriad so people feel confident acquiring MYR at a healthy rate.

If you artificially lower the coin generation rate, the price may "rise" initially to a proportional level (which is morally objectionable to even do in the first place), but then you still need the same number of BTC to sustain it at that level. The artificial price rise is equivalent to a pump and offers nothing to the coin except unfair advantage to everyone mining this coin in its early days.

If you invested 1BTC into Litecoin and 1BTC into Myriadcoin, you would need both to increase 100% to get 2BTC despite their relative price difference against BTC. LTC would need to jump from 0.025 LTC/BTC to 0.05 LTC/BTC while MYR would need to jump from 0.00000575 MYR/BTC to 0.00001050 MYR/BTC. Using this logic, I would actually argue that LTC's coin creation rate is way too high because we've only seen it hit 0.05 LTC/BTC once on a glorious pump. There clearly is not enough buy demand to sustain LTC anywhere above 0.03BTC

Argument over.

I will expound in my own words...
Let's make some favorable assumptions for the 'inflation steals value, period' argument:

1) Every single miner of UTC is mining and dumping as long as it is profitable to do so (Not a smart assumption. I know for a fact that it isn't true with YACoin because I mine it personally, and I hold all of those YACs)

2) If you take a snapshot of the UTC price right now, it is at the minimum price that is currently profitable to mine-and-dump.

3) All current miners are completely LOYAL, and they will mine and hold until reaching the same, constant profitability.

So with these favorable assumptions, let's say the block reward is reduced from 30 to 10 UTC per block (per minute). Supply and demand right? Since the miners are completely loyal, the difficulty is unchanged, and no one will be dumping the coin until the coin has reached triple the price. The demand will also be unchanged (another assumption), so the same buy support will still be there to maintain that level. Oh wait, but you have a lot of sell orders on the books between the current price and triple the current price, so let's make another assumption that every single buy order is removed. So you just used a little supply-and-demand logic and blasted the price up 3-fold concordantly with the 3-fold decrease in block rewards. UTC will have jumped from #150 to #87 in total marketcap. It will still be behind a YACoin clone, which has not manipulated the reward structure at all since inception, but people have different ideas of success.

UTC will prove that the marketcap/price of a coin can simply be manipulated by a dev team changing the reward structure. The news of this plan working perfectly will resonate throughout the crypto world and with economists everywhere. UTC would even prove Austrian economists wrong who claim central planning and manipulation of the money supply just doesn't work. Bitcoin will then have to reduce its block reward as well. Of course, the obvious question that will come next is: if it worked reducing the reward from 30 to 10, why not go from 10 to 1? Or 10 to 0.00000000001. Just make that supply side near zero? Right? Simple.

I will tell you my prediction. First, there will be people completely dumping the coin because they don't want to be invested in a coin that is manipulated like that. I'm sure there will be some people buying UTC anticipating a 'pump'--a pump is a pump artificial or not. However, the coin will NOT reach the triple price-point because 1) You will have a lot of sell orders to burn through of people turning a great profit 2) Mine-and-dumpers will continue to mine-and-dump because the difficulty will drop as necessary for miners to be able to turn a profit. A lot of disenchanted miners will look at other coins, which YAC will thank you for. I believe these things are already happening as part of speculation.

rapture333, I think you know that you are really banking on MORE buy support with your change in the reward structure. I personally wouldn't invest in any coin where the money supply is centrally manipulated--even if the 'dev' earned 5 PhDs and legally changed his name to Friedrich Hayek.

Finally, the whole commentary above really ignores the END money supply. I get that your plan is more about addressing the long-term reward structure vs the short term? But you still say inflation is diluting the value. The long-term inflation is zero. So it seems to me you are really saying in such a statement is that the long-term marketcap of $321,000 [100,000,000 (total Ultracoins there will ever be) X $0.00321 (current price)] is too high. Think about that...

I'm not exactly counting on the price to go up, although there is a chance that people might not be willing to sell at current price if the block reward decreases thus raising the price, I am going to assume that this does not occur at all. Instead, I am looking at the short term inflation from now until 2022 when UTC will reach its 100MM mark, during that time, there will be a significant increase in the coinbase thus creating inflation. That is what I hope this will stop as a secondary effect to increasing the total distribution time. If the price doesn't increase after the block reward is cut, we would have to take the hit now rather than later, a short term sting compared to long term sacrifice. Many speculate that if the Federal Reserve curbed inflation now, the economy would take a hit, but it would lead to a longer term of economic stability. The block reward was cut once early last year when the coin was 4 or 5 months old from 100>50 UTC per block, I believe it was the right decision than as well. At the time it did result in an increase in price, but I am not sure if the effects were temporary or sustained, however it did result in less inflation now. Those benefiting the most from high inflation are the ones that are dumping the coin on the open market, the ones suffering are those who save. Just like how the financial sector of the U.S. economy benefits most in the short term from inflation, before it can be felt in the "productive" economy in the form of higher prices. We have been the most profitable coin to mine for the better part of the last year, this has a positive effect on security, but a negative effect on price. We become an attractive target of multi-pools and miners who are interested in profiting from their setup, which is not a bad thing nor should it be discouraged, but it does effect the market. It may help in distribution however, because of those miners that dump many typically choose to keep a small amount in hopes to win the crypto "lottery". Overall, the reason PoW exists is for distribution, increasing that window will allow more people to get involved in the currency. That is the number one goal of this change, however, it will also lessen the impact of inflation which will also be good for investors and savings. So in general, I don't believe this will have a positive effect on price, but what it will do is slow the degradation of price by the effect of inflation (as well as dumping).

Sincerely,

Steven "Rapture"
Management Director
Steven@Ultracoin.net
Ultracoin

[dan_and_shan]

Well said and well done, this sounds great when do we get started,
 a solid explorer needs top priority IMHO, i am try to accept UTC and a few other coins as payment for goods and services, but need to be able to verify transactions.

and Beave162, I question your experience in finance, and motives here,

Why?

your comment came across a bit rude and pretty arrogant, "Some feedback for you: I personally question your background and your credentials." i couldn't help poking you in the ribs.
was just making the point, that opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, 
 I don't have any formal background in finance, but what Steve was saying made perfect sense to me. your questions where all valid and understandable, but the personal dispersion's where not necessary. 
Onward and upward

[dan_and_shan]

another thing QBK  had a lot of trouble with a stable explorer, now it is hosted with http://blockexperts.com/qbk# and there have been no problems since the change, im fairly sure it was not to expensive, i would be happy to make a contribution toward a stable block explorer, and im sure there would be others in the community that would make small contributions too. 

[rapture333]

Ultrabex.com is up and it doesn't look like there are any issues, enjoy!

Sincerely,

Steven "Rapture"
Management Director
Steven@Ultracoin.net
Ultracoin

[Vlad2Vlad]

let me ask you some question

From the investor point of view waht is the diference betewen 1 milion at 10000 satoshi  vs 10 milion at 1000 satoshi?

 think its the same

But from the acces to the coin  ( from new users ) its a huge diference .

You're right, I don't understand why Bitcoin doesn't take your advice and inflate and dilute Bitcoin to 100 Trillion Bitcoins.

You know, for easier access and to help new users. Imagine how much more popular Bitcoin would be.  lol

In fact, if 100 Trillion is better than 21 million then imagine if we followed Zimbabwe and went to quadrillions?  Hahaha!

I really can't believe this conversation actually needs to take place; no wonder engineers are now required to take economics courses.  lol

[dan_and_shan]

Ultrabex.com is up and it doesn't look like there are any issues, enjoy!

Sincerely,

Steven "Rapture"
Management Director
Steven@Ultracoin.net
Ultracoin

Awesome thankyou

[Beave162]

Bravo on the decrease in inflation.

I don't get why that's so complicated.

Every successful corporation spends billions per year to cut back dilution which is what a cut in subsidy and/or max cap supply is.

This is basic supply an demand and shouldn't even need an explanation.  Staying true to a code which dilutes you into oblivion or kills future investor value is absurd.

And miners won't drop off any more than if you decided to add 100 trillion coins.  The lower supply will result in an equal increase in price (when demand eventually increases) so miners will remain the same. 

Glad the devs here made the right economic decision regarding the future inflation of this coin.

Cheers!

I WILL beat the hell out of this dead horse.

Gentlemen. Coin generation rate means nothing. Do you understand initial pricing on exchanges?

2,880,000 MYR per day x 0.00000500 MYR/BTC = 14.4BTC buy support to maintain 500 MYR assuming every miner dumps every day.

14.4BTC buy support. That's it. You can start to worry when the daily Mintpal volume approaches this number.

How do you increase the value of a coin? You give people reasons to inject their BTC in it. You don't artificially lower the coin generation rate. The innovation alone in this coin gave me a reason to inject my BTC into it on Poloniex. Now, we are doing as much as possible to build projects around Myriad so people feel confident acquiring MYR at a healthy rate.

If you artificially lower the coin generation rate, the price may "rise" initially to a proportional level (which is morally objectionable to even do in the first place), but then you still need the same number of BTC to sustain it at that level. The artificial price rise is equivalent to a pump and offers nothing to the coin except unfair advantage to everyone mining this coin in its early days.

If you invested 1BTC into Litecoin and 1BTC into Myriadcoin, you would need both to increase 100% to get 2BTC despite their relative price difference against BTC. LTC would need to jump from 0.025 LTC/BTC to 0.05 LTC/BTC while MYR would need to jump from 0.00000575 MYR/BTC to 0.00001050 MYR/BTC. Using this logic, I would actually argue that LTC's coin creation rate is way too high because we've only seen it hit 0.05 LTC/BTC once on a glorious pump. There clearly is not enough buy demand to sustain LTC anywhere above 0.03BTC

Argument over.

I will expound in my own words...
Let's make some favorable assumptions for the 'inflation steals value, period' argument:

1) Every single miner of UTC is mining and dumping as long as it is profitable to do so (Not a smart assumption. I know for a fact that it isn't true with YACoin because I mine it personally, and I hold all of those YACs)

2) If you take a snapshot of the UTC price right now, it is at the minimum price that is currently profitable to mine-and-dump.

3) All current miners are completely LOYAL, and they will mine and hold until reaching the same, constant profitability.

So with these favorable assumptions, let's say the block reward is reduced from 30 to 10 UTC per block (per minute). Supply and demand right? Since the miners are completely loyal, the difficulty is unchanged, and no one will be dumping the coin until the coin has reached triple the price. The demand will also be unchanged (another assumption), so the same buy support will still be there to maintain that level. Oh wait, but you have a lot of sell orders on the books between the current price and triple the current price, so let's make another assumption that every single buy order is removed. So you just used a little supply-and-demand logic and blasted the price up 3-fold concordantly with the 3-fold decrease in block rewards. UTC will have jumped from #150 to #87 in total marketcap. It will still be behind a YACoin clone, which has not manipulated the reward structure at all since inception, but people have different ideas of success.

UTC will prove that the marketcap/price of a coin can simply be manipulated by a dev team changing the reward structure. The news of this plan working perfectly will resonate throughout the crypto world and with economists everywhere. UTC would even prove Austrian economists wrong who claim central planning and manipulation of the money supply just doesn't work. Bitcoin will then have to reduce its block reward as well. Of course, the obvious question that will come next is: if it worked reducing the reward from 30 to 10, why not go from 10 to 1? Or 10 to 0.00000000001. Just make that supply side near zero? Right? Simple.

I will tell you my prediction. First, there will be people completely dumping the coin because they don't want to be invested in a coin that is manipulated like that. I'm sure there will be some people buying UTC anticipating a 'pump'--a pump is a pump artificial or not. However, the coin will NOT reach the triple price-point because 1) You will have a lot of sell orders to burn through of people turning a great profit 2) Mine-and-dumpers will continue to mine-and-dump because the difficulty will drop as necessary for miners to be able to turn a profit. A lot of disenchanted miners will look at other coins, which YAC will thank you for. I believe these things are already happening as part of speculation.

rapture333, I think you know that you are really banking on MORE buy support with your change in the reward structure. I personally wouldn't invest in any coin where the money supply is centrally manipulated--even if the 'dev' earned 5 PhDs and legally changed his name to Friedrich Hayek.

Finally, the whole commentary above really ignores the END money supply. I get that your plan is more about addressing the long-term reward structure vs the short term? But you still say inflation is diluting the value. The long-term inflation is zero. So it seems to me you are really saying in such a statement is that the long-term marketcap of $321,000 [100,000,000 (total Ultracoins there will ever be) X $0.00321 (current price)] is too high. Think about that...

I'm not exactly counting on the price to go up, although there is a chance that people might not be willing to sell at current price if the block reward decreases thus raising the price, I am going to assume that this does not occur at all. Instead, I am looking at the short term inflation from now until 2022 when UTC will reach its 100MM mark, during that time, there will be a significant increase in the coinbase thus creating inflation. That is what I hope this will stop as a secondary effect to increasing the total distribution time. If the price doesn't increase after the block reward is cut, we would have to take the hit now rather than later, a short term sting compared to long term sacrifice. Many speculate that if the Federal Reserve curbed inflation now, the economy would take a hit, but it would lead to a longer term of economic stability. The block reward was cut once early last year when the coin was 4 or 5 months old from 100>50 UTC per block, I believe it was the right decision than as well. At the time it did result in an increase in price, but I am not sure if the effects were temporary or sustained, however it did result in less inflation now. Those benefiting the most from high inflation are the ones that are dumping the coin on the open market, the ones suffering are those who save. Just like how the financial sector of the U.S. economy benefits most in the short term from inflation, before it can be felt in the "productive" economy in the form of higher prices. We have been the most profitable coin to mine for the better part of the last year, this has a positive effect on security, but a negative effect on price. We become an attractive target of multi-pools and miners who are interested in profiting from their setup, which is not a bad thing nor should it be discouraged, but it does effect the market. It may help in distribution however, because of those miners that dump many typically choose to keep a small amount in hopes to win the crypto "lottery". Overall, the reason PoW exists is for distribution, increasing that window will allow more people to get involved in the currency. That is the number one goal of this change, however, it will also lessen the impact of inflation which will also be good for investors and savings. So in general, I don't believe this will have a positive effect on price, but what it will do is slow the degradation of price by the effect of inflation (as well as dumping).

Sincerely,

Steven "Rapture"
Management Director
Steven@Ultracoin.net
Ultracoin

I quoted someone else's explanation. I tried explaining myself. You still don't understand. You believe so strongly in the 'inflation' cliche: new money created steals value from money already in existence... period. Long-term inflation equals zero mean anything to you? Yet you do concede in 'distribution' that should be done through PoW, but you want to minimize the effects of 'inflation'. I think I have that right, yes?

Anyway, what's wrong with a little salesmanship... the price of YAC decreased to 0.0000001 only a few months ago. I bought a batch at that low price, so should I be thanking the mine-and-dumpers for giving me that opportunity? The price has increased 8-fold since! Or should I be hating on the initial buyers for allowing the price to be high from the beginning?

What is your goal rapture333? What.is.your.goal?

I wish I could have an intelligent conversation on how volume could very well be the biggest factor in taking a crypto-currency mainstream, but I definitely can't discuss such a thing here.

To the people who type in broken English on this thread...  no comment.

[dan_and_shan]

Getting insane amounts of orphans, is there anything i can do to minimize this?

[funsponge]

Can beav & Steven PM each other rather than taking up so much of the thread. Beav we get your against the changes stop going on about it. The decision has been made. You have had your say, now get over it or move on.

[rapture333]

@Beave

My goal is to see Ultracoin succeed, I am not sure what else you want me to say? I already made my point as to why these changes are being made and what they will accomplish. This is not the endgame, this is simply a set of positive steps that will move us in the right direction. There is still much work to be done to make sure Ultracoin grows as an accepted, well distributed and stable currency.

@ dan_and_shan

The orphans are most likely being caused by PoS combined with our fast block time of 60 seconds compounded with the low difficulty. When a PoS block is staked at the same time as a PoW block, or even when another miner hits a block, the one that is found first will be the legitimate block that is accepted by the chain. One thing we will be fixing during the next update is the low difficulty, by adjusting the block retargetting algorithm to average over a longer period of blocks it should smooth the difficulty out nicely, which should help the orphan rate considerably.

Sincerely,

Steven "Rapture"
Management Director
Steven@Ultracoin.net
Ultracoin

[dan_and_shan]

@Beave

My goal is to see Ultracoin succeed, I am not sure what else you want me to say? I already made my point as to why these changes are being made and what they will accomplish. This is not the endgame, this is simply a set of positive steps that will move us in the right direction. There is still much work to be done to make sure Ultracoin grows as an accepted, well distributed and stable currency.

@ dan_and_shan

The orphans are most likely being caused by PoS combined with our fast block time of 60 seconds compounded with the low difficulty. When a PoS block is staked at the same time as a PoW block, or even when another miner hits a block, the one that is found first will be the legitimate block that is accepted by the chain. One thing we will be fixing during the next update is the low difficulty, by adjusting the block retargetting algorithm to average over a longer period of blocks it should smooth the difficulty out nicely, which should help the orphan rate considerably.

Sincerely,

Steven "Rapture"
Management Director
Steven@Ultracoin.net
Ultracoin

Thanx for the feedback

[Thirtybird]

Can beav & Steven PM each other rather than taking up so much of the thread. Beav we get your against the changes stop going on about it. The decision has been made. You have had your say, now get over it or move on.

Actually, it was a pretty civil conversation where each party had opposing viewpoints - I think it's good to let people interested in Ultracoin read why a decision is being made and being justified (whether right or wrong) by the person making the change.

That being said, I think the foundation of the logic justifying the change is shaky at best, and a money grab (via price manipulation) at the worst.

[Fuzzbawls]

meanwhile, ultrablockparty is still not working properly...

[king_pin]

Are we ever going back to NF15 wtf 

[lpedretti]

meanwhile, ultrablockparty is still not working properly...

Yeap, my UTC still trapped there. Is there anything we can do? I work on IT, i have managed hundreds of servers, i have a software development company working on fairly big sites, and never, NEVER took me so long to fix an email gateway, or to fix a PHP application to correcty send emails, like 4-5 hours at the most? Plz...

Thanx a lot for your effort!

Best regards.

[lpedretti]

What's the command line to start the daemon with stake minting enabled? or the config option, it's the same

Thanx!

[IMweasel]

What's the command line to start the daemon with stake minting enabled? or the config option, it's the same

Thanx!

Open the console from within the Wallet and type "setgenerate true" to start mining.
(cpu mining,not sure if the mining automatically  restarts if you restart the wallet)
For stake minting just tick 'enable stake minting' in the overview. I checked for a command to do this but didn't notice one...