[ANN] Snowballs | ONE MORE HARD FORK to BALLS 2.0.2 | BALLS/MMXIV Market OPEN

[Cor2]

<blieb> RAR FILES
I <blieb> HATE RAR FILES....
I HATE THEM SO MUCH I JUST GOT BANNED FROM POLO TROLLBOX <blieb>

haha, looks like someone got in @ 19K and a little angry at the current price maybe?

iGotSpots should post next update as 7z

I would like to see the next Windows client as .tar
Or mail-order on tape.
Shall we also have the option for either punch cards or paper tape?

[1714058868]

1714058868

[1714058868]

1714058868

[1714058868]

1714058868

[anticlimax]

<blieb> RAR FILES
I <blieb> HATE RAR FILES....
I HATE THEM SO MUCH I JUST GOT BANNED FROM POLO TROLLBOX <blieb>

haha, looks like someone got in @ 19K and a little angry at the current price maybe?

iGotSpots should post next update as 7z

I would like to see the next Windows client as .tar
Or mail-order on tape.
Shall we also have the option for either punch cards or paper tape?

Mail order on tape.. 
You just made my day.

[Cor2]

Getting some negativity about the merge. Thinking about other options

Would snowballs gain all the wallet features from M?
At first I was against the merge strongly, but I feel I was over reacting.
Keep up the solid work. 

I would very much welcome the merge of my M and Balls!
So, I guess you can count me as one of the people *for* your original plan.

[Cor2]

How many blocks are minted in 24hours period? About ~1,000+?

I couldn't find it in the coin spec and it is definitely different than M (which which Balls was derived, since M has 2 min blocks,
while I see a block time of Balls closer to 40 sec.
PoS staking started at Nov 2 (2 weeks ago) and we are now at block 65,000 and at least half of those blocks are PoS.
With 40 sec block time, you get 90 per hour, so 24 x 90 = 2160 per day on average.
So the increase of staking at block 80,000 is about 15,000 blocks away which is about a week.

[CiZ]

Just so this is out in the open early...

Once we get to the flat 1000% stake, we will be merging Maieuticoin and Snowballs into one block chain. There will be a set number of coins mined in the first block. Half will go towards a trade-in for Maieuticoin and half will be a trade-in for Snowballs. You will receive your new coins at a rate that is fair and puts each half at a comparable value. The new coin will remain Snowballs (BALLS) as the name and ticker and the stake will be a flat 1000%. This will not happen until after Snowballs Block 100,000

please explain more..
in block 100,000 Snowballs integrate with Maieutico ?
and what to happen of any old snowballs holder ?

thx.

[kelsey]

Getting some negativity about the merge. Thinking about other options

The merge seems like a 50/50 prospect. Balls has more momentum than M at the moment and don't know if that my drag Balls down in some way. But at the same time, the merger can give incentive having both coins being minted on the the same blockchain and owner stake in both coins. Maybe just focus on getting more services, products and features specifics to Balls?

I think its more the M holders losing out, balls is just shortterm flavor of the day, (and even limited on that) which itself is on the down trend, M holders didn't buy in for a 1000% 5000% huge supply coin, given time M could be a good longterm bet.

most coins have no more the a few core supporters, thing is M could survive and prosper off just a few ppl liking it. not many coins to go round if u could gather enough interest in it.

How do you see a downtrend?
Every day the price doesn't decrease 14% you gain profit.
Since the price is twice what it was when the coin hit ccex I would hardly call it a downtrend.

1M Coins at 1700 sat vs 4M coins at 4000sat.. And you call that a downtrend?
Stop looking at individual coin prices and focus on the market cap.

Sounds like you are bias towards M.. Could you be a holder?

I really like Ball, I bought another 1.2k the other day at 4k sat and they are still holding at 4k sat and I staked 1k since then, no complaining at all, Balls are here to stay..Everyone should grow some balls, especially us girls! about time.. I would suggest every crypto enthusiast to hold a few k balls and forget about them for a while, let them make babies.

sounds to me like you guys have solved the worlds financial crisis  

you do though realise sooner or later the music stops (granted maybe takes alittle longer on these markets cause traders aren't so.......well  ).

[David Latapie]

Every day the price doesn't decrease 14% you gain profit.

I apologize in advance, but I just can't resist

Now to prove you my good faith:

I wanted to see what the competition has to offer. So far, I am unimpressed by the code (I just finished compiling it on Linux), but I also that with success people with better coding ability can come. So you still have a chance You are helping reducing carbon footprint, which is good (you could have avoided generating extra carbon footprint by just forklaunching Maieuticoin, but well... what is done is done.

[iGotSpots]

Every day the price doesn't decrease 14% you gain profit.

I apologize in advance, but I just can't resist

Now to prove you my good faith:

I wanted to see what the competition has to offer. So far, I am unimpressed by the code (I just finished compiling it on Linux), but I also that with success people with better coding ability can come. So you still have a chance You are helping reducing carbon footprint, which is good (you could have avoided generating extra carbon footprint by just forklaunching Maieuticoin, but well... what is done is done.

Here we go again 

[David Latapie]

Here we go again  

Why "again"? As I said, success brings people and the first versions of HYP wallet where not that great either (even though we already have coin control and a decently-named .pro file).

[iGotSpots]

Here we go again 

Why "again"? As I said, success bring people and the first versions of HYP wallet where not that great either (even though we already have coin control and a decently-named .pro file).

Things in the code are the way they are for a reason. It's already been discussed why certain features are not being added, as well as why things are named the way they are

[locohammerhead]

Optimization is an after thought here IMO.  Also wondering.  Why does it cost less overall to send one large transaction than it does to send small ones?  Ex: a transfer of 600 BALLS is around 11 BALLS in fees.  150 BALLS is about 6.70 BALLS.  This shows me the favor is leaning towards the high rollers are they can send larger amounts for less.

[iGotSpots]

Optimization is an after thought here IMO.  Also wondering.  Why does it cost less overall to send one large transaction than it does to send small ones?  Ex: a transfer of 600 BALLS is around 11 BALLS in fees.  150 BALLS is about 6.70 BALLS.  This shows me the favor is leaning towards the high rollers are they can send larger amounts for less.

Because I'm not adding coin control?

Add it yourself if you want it that bad. Use the PeerUnity wallet; it's not that hard and will connect to our clients just the same

[David Latapie]

Here we go again  

Why "again"? As I said, success bring people and the first versions of HYP wallet where not that great either (even though we already have coin control and a decently-named .pro file).

Things in the code are the way they are for a reason. It's already been discussed why certain features are not being added, as well as why things are named the way they are

Thank you. I may browse the thread for answers.

[iGotSpots]

Optimization is an after thought here IMO.  Also wondering.  Why does it cost less overall to send one large transaction than it does to send small ones?  Ex: a transfer of 600 BALLS is around 11 BALLS in fees.  150 BALLS is about 6.70 BALLS.  This shows me the favor is leaning towards the high rollers are they can send larger amounts for less.

This shows you don't understand how transaction fees are calculated, since it uses size of transaction not amount of coins sent (for pretty much every coin out there)

I've said this at least 20 times now and it's not like we are calculating fees differently than other coins do, just use a higher amount

[David Latapie]

I've said this at least 20 times now and it's not like we are calculating fees differently than other coins do, just use a higher amount

You should consider setting up a FAQ, then
Always glad to see more experimentation going on!

[locohammerhead]

Optimization is an after thought here IMO.  Also wondering.  Why does it cost less overall to send one large transaction than it does to send small ones?  Ex: a transfer of 600 BALLS is around 11 BALLS in fees.  150 BALLS is about 6.70 BALLS.  This shows me the favor is leaning towards the high rollers are they can send larger amounts for less.

This shows you don't understand how transaction fees are calculated, since it uses size of transaction not amount of coins sent (for pretty much every coin out there)

I've said this at least 20 times now and it's not like we are calculating fees differently than other coins do, just use a higher amount

Bullshit.  That's why I can run consistent tests where the fee percentage is LOWER the more coins I send.  Since you claim it uses transaction size shouldn't it be the more BALLS being sent at once the more data being sent hence it should cost MORE overall to send those coins?  Yet somehow it doesn't.  Odd....

*edited post to add "overall"*

[iGotSpots]

Optimization is an after thought here IMO.  Also wondering.  Why does it cost less overall to send one large transaction than it does to send small ones?  Ex: a transfer of 600 BALLS is around 11 BALLS in fees.  150 BALLS is about 6.70 BALLS.  This shows me the favor is leaning towards the high rollers are they can send larger amounts for less.

This shows you don't understand how transaction fees are calculated, since it uses size of transaction not amount of coins sent (for pretty much every coin out there)

I've said this at least 20 times now and it's not like we are calculating fees differently than other coins do, just use a higher amount

Bullshit.  That's why I can run consistent tests where the fee percentage is LOWER the more coins I send.  Since you claim it uses transaction size shouldn't it be the more BALLS being sent at once the more data being sent hence it should cost MORE overall to send those coins?  Yet somehow it doesn't.  Odd....

*edited post to add "overall"*

Go look at the code. You can clearly see where and how fees are calculated. Before you make yourself look more stupid, it's based on bytes, not amount sent

[iGotSpots]

Guys, let's not step on his BALLS. They are tender and he hasn't had a chance to dump em yet

This coming from the guy with his own thread for dumping high PoS coins   

[anticlimax]

Guys, let's not step on his BALLS. They are tender and he hasn't had a chance to dump em yet

This coming from the guy with his own thread for dumping high PoS coins  

Hehe. Well not like I made anything off the high PoS in the months I had them. Actually, I most definitely lost on a fiat basis too.

But it's okay; you brought MMXIV to my attention and dumbass me thought it was pretty cool and put 5+ BTC in it.

Didn't fall for it in BALLS though

I love how so called traders blame others for their inability to exit with profit.

[anticlimax]

Optimization is an after thought here IMO.  Also wondering.  Why does it cost less overall to send one large transaction than it does to send small ones?  Ex: a transfer of 600 BALLS is around 11 BALLS in fees.  150 BALLS is about 6.70 BALLS.  This shows me the favor is leaning towards the high rollers are they can send larger amounts for less.

First off, you are so wrong it's not even funny.
You might want to get back to your "hyper stake scam" thread.