[ANN][CRW] CROWN (MN-PoS) | Platform | NFT framework | Governance | Masternodes

[stonehedge]

This new web site represents a huge step forward for the project. 

The previous branding was too heavily focused on history.  The new branding recognises our past by retaining the link in a subtle way but focuses very much on our plans for the future.

[1714264431]

1714264431

[defunctec]

[Add Crown to Bittrex Fund]

Bittrex is a non starter. We've had several unproductive
conversations with them and have decided to redirect funds to go towards core development.

[Development fund]

19EngcDCxQtSswQjonWBVdBqg1q7FK16hK

All funds raised will be used to support our core development team

[tommyj1]

[Add Crown to Bittrex Fund]

Bittrex is a non starter. We've had several unproductive
conversations with them and have decided to redirect funds to go towards core development.

[Development fund]

19EngcDCxQtSswQjonWBVdBqg1q7FK16hK

All funds raised will be used to support our core development team

So we won't be listed at trex?

[defunctec]

[Add Crown to Bittrex Fund]

Bittrex is a non starter. We've had several unproductive
conversations with them and have decided to redirect funds to go towards core development.

[Development fund]

19EngcDCxQtSswQjonWBVdBqg1q7FK16hK

All funds raised will be used to support our core development team

So we won't be listed at trex?

We're still working on it, but these funds will be used to support the development. The Guy who sent 1.5 Bitcoin to the fund suggested we use it to fund core development.

I'll be making an official announcement on a new addition to the core team very soon.

[infernoman]

I'd love to help with testing too.. but will need some handholding on how to do since I am new to this stuff....

Along those lines -- if I am testing stuff on the machine which I am also running my thrones from, then I will worry about any security holes I might be opening up -- which is probably less of a risk than just running windows anyway -- but got me thinking...

I would like to be able to specify a "pay to address" in the Crowncoin.conf file of each throne -- so that the thrones could just receive all their payments in one address, rather than each throne receiving payments in the same address which the collateral is kept in.  The primary benefit of this is segmenting the earnings from the collateral at the address and also wallet level, so that coin locking isn't an issue and also so that I can just keep the collateral separate -- just like I would with "real world" collateral... so I am also just trying to push the digital process to look more like it's real world analog, which has been tested in its own way for centuries, so has some lessons to teach -- despite it's other obvious bugs...

I would put the pay to address in the Crowncoin.conf because then it points to and you can see whether you are receiving payments from your wallet you are managing the throne from -- it feels like there could be a one-many problem where more than one thone.conf could seem to claim a throne somehow if one were to specify the pay to address from the throne management wallet...  but I just thought of this about 30 minutes ago when I thought about helping test some code -- so am still thinking it through...   

This also have the benefit of not relying on the ephemeral wallet locking function or other wallet coin control to secure the collateral -- but would allow it to be kept offline in paper wallets or some other "vault" -- laptop in a freezer in a cave in Switzerland (crypto meets cryo?)... never understood vaults... seems like laminated paper or something else preserved that way and kept in a binder is probably best... but I like using three ring binders to save notes, articles, clips and other things that I want to be able to look at later -- my own person idiosyncracy.

Thoughts?

You could send multiple transactions of 10 000 to one address to keep all of the payments on a single address hopefully that helps ALSO everyone join the bittrex slack and ask them when crown is going to be available to trade on bittrex. the more you bug them the better ! of course dont pester the owners directly but ask in the channel as a whole. if one of the guys from bittrex ask you to back off just follow instruction not to piss them off too much. They want community demand. Lets give it to them.

[mhrwyhhgd]

i will waiting your official announcement, good luck

[crowncoin_knight]

Hey guys

iOS app is finally done. Few bugs to sort tomorrow then will submit to app store. Crown monitoring on iPhones in just a few weeks, following Apple approval  

I am an iPhone user, so I am really looking forward to check my Thrones during the day on my phone! Great job calnaughtonjnr!

Just tested the Throne monitoring app on my iPhone last night, works great. Now ready for the submission to iTunes!  

[IconFirm]

Whats this?:

https://github.com/Crowndev/crowncoin/commit/9a5ad2c

Who decided to lower the payments to miners again?

Were miners or CRW users consulted about this - if so, where?

[defunctec]

Whats this?:

https://github.com/Crowndev/crowncoin/commit/9a5ad2c

Who decided to lower the payments to miners again?

Were miners or CRW users consulted about this - if so, where?

We're conducting updates to the Dash codebase, which we use for Thrones.
In the new codebase is a governance fund where ideas and propositions can be voted on.

We decided to keep the governance code and allocate 10% of the coinbase reward to it.
This 10% needs to come from somewhere.

Also this code has not yet been released and is still in progress. We intend to
give a full breakdown of the new codebase and what changes have been made, before
we release the update to the public.

[stonehedge]

Yes, it appears that youre looking at changes that haven't been committed yet. All part of the core updates we are working on.

[IconFirm]

Whats this?:

https://github.com/Crowndev/crowncoin/commit/9a5ad2c

Who decided to lower the payments to miners again?

Were miners or CRW users consulted about this - if so, where?

We're conducting updates to the Dash codebase, which we use for Thrones.
In the new codebase is a governance fund where ideas and propositions can be voted on.

We decided to keep the governance code and allocate 10% of the coinbase reward to it.
This 10% needs to come from somewhere.

Also this code has not yet been released and is still in progress. We intend to
give a full breakdown of the new codebase and what changes have been made, before
we release the update to the public.

I'm aware that this code has yet to be released, that was not my question.

This change to miner payments & it's insertion into a future update gives the impression that "someone/people" have already decided it will happen without any consultation/consensus or debate with the mining community - at least the last time you reduced miners income there was some kind of debate about it - why not this time?

If "This 10% needs to come from somewhere", who decided it should be taken from miners income? Miners have already lost 40% of their income, isn't that enough? Why not take it from masternode payments? Or somewhere else?

[crowncoin_knight]

Whats this?:

https://github.com/Crowndev/crowncoin/commit/9a5ad2c

Who decided to lower the payments to miners again?

Were miners or CRW users consulted about this - if so, where?

We're conducting updates to the Dash codebase, which we use for Thrones.
In the new codebase is a governance fund where ideas and propositions can be voted on.

We decided to keep the governance code and allocate 10% of the coinbase reward to it.
This 10% needs to come from somewhere.

Also this code has not yet been released and is still in progress. We intend to
give a full breakdown of the new codebase and what changes have been made, before
we release the update to the public.

I'm aware that this code has yet to be released, that was not my question.

This change to miner payments & it's insertion into a future update gives the impression that "someone/people" have already decided it will happen without any consultation/consensus or debate with the mining community - at least the last time you reduced miners income there was some kind of debate about it - why not this time?

If "This 10% needs to come from somewhere", who decided it should be taken from miners income? Miners have already lost 40% of their income, isn't that enough? Why not take it from masternode payments? Or somewhere else?

We intend to fully discuss any changes with the community, before we release the update. The implementation of Thrones few months back increased market cap of Crown substantially, and made this project interesting to new community members. Miners benefited big time as well. The relationship between miners and throne operators have to be in balance, therefore 45pct of rewards going to miners, 45pct going to Throne operators and 10pct to governance is a well balanced situation. We are looking forward to discuss this here, before any changes are applied.

[CHAOSiTEC]

Whats this?:

https://github.com/Crowndev/crowncoin/commit/9a5ad2c

Who decided to lower the payments to miners again?

Were miners or CRW users consulted about this - if so, where?

We're conducting updates to the Dash codebase, which we use for Thrones.
In the new codebase is a governance fund where ideas and propositions can be voted on.

We decided to keep the governance code and allocate 10% of the coinbase reward to it.
This 10% needs to come from somewhere.

Also this code has not yet been released and is still in progress. We intend to
give a full breakdown of the new codebase and what changes have been made, before
we release the update to the public.

I'm aware that this code has yet to be released, that was not my question.

This change to miner payments & it's insertion into a future update gives the impression that "someone/people" have already decided it will happen without any consultation/consensus or debate with the mining community - at least the last time you reduced miners income there was some kind of debate about it - why not this time?

If "This 10% needs to come from somewhere", who decided it should be taken from miners income? Miners have already lost 40% of their income, isn't that enough? Why not take it from masternode payments? Or somewhere else?

So far, these changes have not been decided, the reason your seeing this in the code is because we had a discussion, and we agreed to test this out in testnet, and then we would engage the community, sadly your quick to accuse, instead of asking.. we have alot of stuff comming in over time, and some of the things will be discussed with the community before roll out, others wont, because they will benefit all.

but i can only imagine that your only interrested because your just selling, not holding any yourself..

Maybe set up a few thrones? that would earn you some coins as well...

[IconFirm]

sadly your quick to accuse, instead of asking..

I did ask - it was my very first sentence:

Whats this?:

https://github.com/Crowndev/crowncoin/commit/9a5ad2c

I'm not aware of any discussion about reducing miners income again - please post a link where this happened.

but i can only imagine that your only interrested because your just selling, not holding any yourself..

Not sure why you presume this, but it's wrong & off topic. Besides, selling my CRW at the current price would be daft.

99.9% of the time, ideas are discussed before implementing them into the code for testing, not the other way round - that's the whole idea of having a forum/community.

Will you also be "testing" reducing masternode payments?

[defunctec]

sadly your quick to accuse, instead of asking..

I did ask - it was my very first sentence:

Whats this?:

https://github.com/Crowndev/crowncoin/commit/9a5ad2c

I'm not aware of any discussion about reducing miners income again - please post a link where this happened.

but i can only imagine that your only interrested because your just selling, not holding any yourself..

Not sure why you presume this, but it's wrong & off topic. Besides, selling my CRW at the current price would be daft.

99.9% of the time, ideas are discussed before implementing them into the code for testing, not the other way round - that's the whole idea of having a forum/community.

Will you also be "testing" reducing masternode payments?

The conversation has been held on slack and at the meeting. We agreed (core dev team) to proceed quickly on the core updates and get a template of the codebase finished (Everyone knows about the core updates.) We then would go to the forum to talk about parameters, eg coinbase distribution/governence fund %.

FYI we have around 10 people that are part of the community and dev team that regularly contribute to Crown finances and development. So its not like its just me and someone else is making all the decisions.

[IconFirm]

So did these "around 10 people" only discuss reducing miners income by a further 10%, or will they be testing reducing masternode payments as well?

[stonehedge]

So did these "around 10 people" only discuss reducing miners income by a further 10%, or will they be testing reducing masternode payments as well?

You'll see in the whitepapers are about to release for discussion. First of five will be released in the next few days. Mentions our proposal to change rewards.

[defunctec]

So did these "around 10 people" only discuss reducing miners income by a further 10%, or will they be testing reducing masternode payments as well?

We're not testing anything until we discuss parameters on the forum.

We may aswel start to discuss the params now.
@infernoman, can you give a list of changeable Params for the core updates?

[stonehedge]

So did these "around 10 people" only discuss reducing miners income by a further 10%, or will they be testing reducing masternode payments as well?

You'll see in the whitepapers are about to release for discussion. First of five will be released in the next few days. Mentions our proposal to change rewards.

For the record, there are going to be a massive number of changes proposed like this. I look forward to your continuing positive contributions and support.

[infernoman]

Whats this?:

https://github.com/Crowndev/crowncoin/commit/9a5ad2c

Who decided to lower the payments to miners again?

Were miners or CRW users consulted about this - if so, where?

We're conducting updates to the Dash codebase, which we use for Thrones.
In the new codebase is a governance fund where ideas and propositions can be voted on.

We decided to keep the governance code and allocate 10% of the coinbase reward to it.
This 10% needs to come from somewhere.

Also this code has not yet been released and is still in progress. We intend to
give a full breakdown of the new codebase and what changes have been made, before
we release the update to the public.

I'm aware that this code has yet to be released, that was not my question.

This change to miner payments & it's insertion into a future update gives the impression that "someone/people" have already decided it will happen without any consultation/consensus or debate with the mining community - at least the last time you reduced miners income there was some kind of debate about it - why not this time?

If "This 10% needs to come from somewhere", who decided it should be taken from miners income? Miners have already lost 40% of their income, isn't that enough? Why not take it from masternode payments? Or somewhere else?

If you look at it a bit more carefully you'll notice that this wasn't an update to the crown repo. but to my own. You would currently receive 0.6 CRW per block. and after the changes it would be 0.45 CRW. BUT as it has been noted. it has not been fully discussed and this is just a testing point for us.

There is a TON of changes. most of them were to update the base code to dash 0.12.0.x and bitcoin 0.11. During that there were a few adjustments to the code that needed to be sorted. Merged mining had to be added to the new repo. name stamping and timestamping still have to make it in there. A proper throne manager was added. as well as the ability to specify an aux pow address to mine to. no more mining to random addresses as an auxpow miner. One more thing i will be looking into is making it so miners arent able to change the block reward lower at will. currently there are some miners on the network that look like they themselves have built a client purposely to mine blocks that have a smaller reward than normal. It does burn off a few coins, but also changes some end game calculations. and ill make sure with the next update that is no longer possible.