[LTCD] LitecoinDark.com ★ Scrypt ★ Difficulty Shield ★ Multipool ★ Fast

[jahl]

As Troll says, I think we should downgrade the blockreward ASAP.
Is this ok with the community ?

fine by me

[1714738809]

1714738809

[1714738809]

1714738809

[AminerMiner]

 me say aye

[BitCoin Operated Boy]

Please stop with the exchange submissions for a minute.

THINK first. Read backward here and review the posts from people regarding both sides of the matter. Then decide if you want to murder LTCD or not.

FROM DEV, no more exchanges at the moment, wait ! I know its hard, but it is worth it.

Ok, I stopped adding. Requested only Poloniex. BTC-E and Bter as mentioned :-)

I agree that current name isn't that bad.

[BitCoin Operated Boy]

I still see all this talk of a name change, and while it may be a good idea for later, maybe at the 2.0 launch, right now we're known as LTCD.  I seriously doubt "dark" is discouraging investors.  It's far more likely that someone holding a massive amount of a coin that is being quickly depleted still in its infancy is discouraging new investors.  I am 100% behind the idea of dropping the block rewards.  I am 100% behind adding proof of stake.  I'm also 100% behind the current list of bugfixes and resolutions that I'm working on (ie. the pchMessageStart problem).

The way I see things, I wish I had gotten the opportunity to help with this coin prior to its initial launch.  I would almost propose relaunching LTCD with a side blockchain using proof-of-burn and trading 1:1 or even 1:0.5 with the new codebase to reduce the number of coins in circulation, without raising the 82,003,200 cap and allowing a definite start to proof-of-stake block generation and rewards.

Some of these things will need to be addressed VERY quickly if LTCD is to survive.  Some of these things may be damaging to our reputation in the short term, but I think we'll end up with a better infrastructure and more room for growth with the possibility of expansion very soon.

I have forked litecoin (again) into a staging repository where I'm going to build (yet another) testing-only currency to run some specific simulations and work out my own proof-of-stake implementation outside of core.  The sources will be open, so you can feel free to compile your own, but consider it a semi-closed beta as binary wallets will only be distributed to a select few of those willing to help run various scenarios.  In this staging currency, there will a stipulation within the license agreement that you are NOT allowed to buy or sell the currency for any real-world currency, crypto, fiat, precious metals or anything else that can be given a monetary value EXCEPT the staging coin itself.  It is something I'd like to keep as a staging ground for 2.0 features with no direct ties to LTCD other than hypotheticals.

PM for invites for beta testing.  I'll personally vet the testing candidates and decide who can get an early copy.

The staging currency I'm referring to is NOT LTCD 2.0, it is only a test bed (beyond the scope of testnet) for future feature integration within LTCD proper.

I trust you with these decisions.

[vicvelcro]

I don't think the name change subject is off the table. I think it was intended to come later, at the time it was first brought up. Unless I am now misunderstanding something, it's still on the table for sometime down the road.

Somehow, it seems people have been reading into the issue things that weren't actually communicated. People have interpreted the words or the intent of the words in various posts about this. It is possible that I've done it myself, unintentionally.

Kind of a shame on the name change thing, but maybe its better to keep it for another day.

I noticed someone came up with Qwiksilver on the LTCD website and that has a ring to it for future reference.

[Xircom]

I don't think the name change subject is off the table. I think it was intended to come later, at the time it was first brought up. Unless I am now misunderstanding something, it's still on the table for sometime down the road.

Somehow, it seems people have been reading into the issue things that weren't actually communicated. People have interpreted the words or the intent of the words in various posts about this. It is possible that I've done it myself, unintentionally.

Kind of a shame on the name change thing, but maybe its better to keep it for another day.

I noticed someone came up with Qwiksilver on the LTCD website and that has a ring to it for future reference.

As I said, it is further down the road. Not now !

[Xircom]

As I see it some guys forgets to read some pages back before making new posts :-)

[vicvelcro]

I vote:
Downgrade the reward. As soon as can be managed.

I'm one of the people mining, spread hash on more than one single pool. The current reward is too generous.

As Troll says, I think we should downgrade the blockreward ASAP.
Is this ok with the community ?

[vicvelcro]

Maybe this public service announcement will help?!?

As I see it some guys forgets to read some pages back before making new posts :-)

[BitCoin Operated Boy]

I've got the question to Devs.
Have you guys, maybe, contacted BitcoinDark developers if they would be willing to share their SuperNET technology?

[jahl]

I love the current name and everyone knows what i'm talking about when mentioning LTCD.
I personally have no intrest in seeing a different name, but thats my opinion.
If i may be completly honest, i would actually hate a name change.

[sally87]

Why are you guys even discussing the name change when there are still features being developed. I'd much rather keep the name and focus heavily on development.

I agree. If you change your name, that's for me a little bit silly. It will destroy ltcd. I know that for sure. So keep it like this or stop with it!

[InitialDat]

I've got the question to Devs.
Have you guys, maybe, contacted BitcoinDark developers if they would be willing to share their SuperNET technology?

This should be the next topic

[TonyHill]

I vote:
Downgrade the reward. As soon as can be managed.

I'm one of the people mining, spread hash on more than one single pool. The current reward is too generous.

in this respect, agree with all 100%.
Downgrade the reward.
really a big reward. we need to increase the prospect of production of at least a year

but do not share issued coins. after such a coin will certainly lose confidence.
imagine. you buy LTCD on 10 BTC. thereafter your coins to be reduced two times.
does not matter that this is offset by an increase in the proportional liquidity - visually it's not nice.

[Xircom]

I've got the question to Devs.
Have you guys, maybe, contacted BitcoinDark developers if they would be willing to share their SuperNET technology?

This should be the next topic

Hold on guys, I think we need to focus on the development of the v. 2.0 and then add-ons later on.
2.0 Whitepaper before anything else, then launch of v.2.0, then new features.

[vicvelcro]

Some coins have declined the opportunity to join SuperNET, based on the suspicion that SuperNET might take advantage of those coins' benefits but not contribute anything beneficial to those coins. There is some distrust scattered around.

I personally haven't taken a close look at SuperNET but would advise a bit of extra caution before making any concrete decision.

I've got the question to Devs.
Have you guys, maybe, contacted BitcoinDark developers if they would be willing to share their SuperNET technology?

This should be the next topic

[InitialDat]

Some coins have declined the opportunity to join SuperNET, based on the suspicion that SuperNET might take advantage of those coins' benefits but not contribute anything beneficial to those coins. There is some distrust scattered around.

I personally haven't taken a close look at SuperNET but would advise a bit of extra caution before making any concrete decision.

I've got the question to Devs.
Have you guys, maybe, contacted BitcoinDark developers if they would be willing to share their SuperNET technology?

This should be the next topic

Which is why we should discuss it in the other forum or reddit. Whichever.

[jahl]

Some coins have declined the opportunity to join SuperNET, based on the suspicion that SuperNET might take advantage of those coins' benefits but not contribute anything beneficial to those coins. There is some distrust scattered around.

I personally haven't taken a close look at SuperNET but would advise a bit of extra caution before making any concrete decision.

I've got the question to Devs.
Have you guys, maybe, contacted BitcoinDark developers if they would be willing to share their SuperNET technology?

This should be the next topic

I came to the exact same conclusion when reading up on superNet.
Might want to hold off untill we can see how other coins are actually benefiting from it when(if) its up and running.
Its all a bit of a blur right now i feel.

Not at the top of the wishing list for now i would say

[sgwayne]

I posted my version of the red logo
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=781305.new#new

[zugvogel21]

good evening all. Is there an possibility that some one can fill me in on the days actions???

I have read a bit and am very happy to see there is a new team member.

Congrats @Xircom

I wish you all the best.

Also is there any news on the block reward reduction.

I think this will be a great idea but to do it with the a huge publicity and to advertise it well for that it happens when the next halving comes around.

I am still worried that a lot of people will get angry and divert the coin totally.

Who knows.