◥TALK◥15%◣bitcointalk(💬) est✪2014★yr4✪ [btc]💬

[four3200]

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/talk/block.dws?1843767.htm

This is almost the very minute Yobit broke off
2019-02-27 15:36:17

BLOCK 1843767 Yobit_wallet was in sync with chainz
3 minutes later Yobit is broadcast somewhere else

---

these are rats....with "circle jerk trust ratings"--> should be shoved down their throats.

Vod & the
cryptodevils
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=224980

[ANN] CET - Crypto Escrow Team 
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1938190

[1714776763]

1714776763

[1714776763]

1714776763

[1714776763]

1714776763

[1714776763]

1714776763

[1714776763]

1714776763

[1714776763]

1714776763

[groggin]

please do not use yobit fork, cannot count on them :/

otherwise, awesome to see some action finally

[four3200]

---
Interested in org a Crypto Escrow Team for Classic Crypto Swaps

https://stakingrewards.com/

[Blockchain Mechanic]

...
Except since TALK was delisted almost 5 years ago, they may have deleted the wallet.dat?
And most accounts with TALK might be abandoned long ago.

I'm afraid that's the case. Even if they still have wallet.dat file they won't re-enable withdrawals, maybe unless there is huge community demand. But TALK's community is now to scarce right now.


P.S. Blockchain Mechanic, any news?

Was on the road so not much online time. Anyway I think we can safely announce a snapshot date right ?
Since there is low activity on the forum and the chain can we set if for a week from now ?

I propose Sunday 1 June 2019 GMT 00:00 for the snap shot. Once it is done, I will put the balances into a new chain with similar parameters but updated code then we can begin.

Also, if there are any suggestions now would be the time.

[groggin]

:thinking cap on:

keep the 15% PoS to attract new users

include coin control

HD compatible wallet?

...

[Blockchain Mechanic]

:thinking cap on:

keep the 15% PoS to attract new users

include coin control

HD compatible wallet?

...

Yeah, almost all modern features available in other currencies will be available. I have been wondering if the community would be open to dropping a zero in the swap. Note that that i make a lot of assumptions in the positive in this proposal :-

1) We drop a zero so if you currently have 1 000 TALK ,  when the new chain starts, you have 100. This will result in the current supply being denoted as 6.9 million.
2) We then place a cap at 12 million, and allow assets to be issued on the chain later.
3) Minimum stake age at 4 hours with 25% stake to encourage current holders to stake and bring in new users.
4) Introduce servicenodes (developing services will take time but i have ideas) to encourage users to have 24/7 online nodes.
5) servicenodes cost will then be 1000 TALK.

Now for the assumptions :-

If we assume that 50% of supply is lost in exchanges/wallets etc, we have an effective supply of ~ 3.5 M. Assuming as well that users new and old create ~ 200 servicenodes , the circulating supply would go down to 3 million. With the dropped zero and the removal of a large chunk of the supply from the markets for staking as well as servicenodes, the price will pick up. The next move would be a steady flow of developments and updates as well as user pressure on exchanges to list the coin. This should make for an adequate swap path that results in renewed interest in TALK.

Note the above is just an optimistic proposal, feel free to add/remove/change whatever you like.

[George5]

Yeah, almost all modern features available in other currencies will be available. I have been wondering if the community would be open to dropping a zero in the swap. Note that that i make a lot of assumptions in the positive in this proposal :-

1) We drop a zero so if you currently have 1 000 TALK ,  when the new chain starts, you have 100. This will result in the current supply being denoted as 6.9 million.
2) We then place a cap at 12 million, and allow assets to be issued on the chain later.
3) Minimum stake age at 4 hours with 25% stake to encourage current holders to stake and bring in new users.
4) Introduce servicenodes (developing services will take time but i have ideas) to encourage users to have 24/7 online nodes.
5) servicenodes cost will then be 1000 TALK.

Now for the assumptions :-

If we assume that 50% of supply is lost in exchanges/wallets etc, we have an effective supply of ~ 3.5 M. Assuming as well that users new and old create ~ 200 servicenodes , the circulating supply would go down to 3 million. With the dropped zero and the removal of a large chunk of the supply from the markets for staking as well as servicenodes, the price will pick up. The next move would be a steady flow of developments and updates as well as user pressure on exchanges to list the coin. This should make for an adequate swap path that results in renewed interest in TALK.

Note the above is just an optimistic proposal, feel free to add/remove/change whatever you like.

1) Dropping a zero might not be the best idea cuz last time I checked the circulating supply in the active wallets was around 3-5mln TALK and there is a good chance that all other wallets are gone forever. So if we drop a zero from 5mln TALK, wouldn't it make it too scarce with 300-500k supply?
2) If you place a cap does it mean the ROI will be gradually decreasing in time?
3) 25% sounds good to me
4)5) Servicenodes is a good idea to implement.

[Blockchain Mechanic]

Yeah, almost all modern features available in other currencies will be available. I have been wondering if the community would be open to dropping a zero in the swap. Note that that i make a lot of assumptions in the positive in this proposal :-

1) We drop a zero so if you currently have 1 000 TALK ,  when the new chain starts, you have 100. This will result in the current supply being denoted as 6.9 million.
2) We then place a cap at 12 million, and allow assets to be issued on the chain later.
3) Minimum stake age at 4 hours with 25% stake to encourage current holders to stake and bring in new users.
4) Introduce servicenodes (developing services will take time but i have ideas) to encourage users to have 24/7 online nodes.
5) servicenodes cost will then be 1000 TALK.

Now for the assumptions :-

If we assume that 50% of supply is lost in exchanges/wallets etc, we have an effective supply of ~ 3.5 M. Assuming as well that users new and old create ~ 200 servicenodes , the circulating supply would go down to 3 million. With the dropped zero and the removal of a large chunk of the supply from the markets for staking as well as servicenodes, the price will pick up. The next move would be a steady flow of developments and updates as well as user pressure on exchanges to list the coin. This should make for an adequate swap path that results in renewed interest in TALK.

Note the above is just an optimistic proposal, feel free to add/remove/change whatever you like.

1) Dropping a zero might not be the best idea cuz last time I checked the circulating supply in the active wallets was around 3-5mln TALK and there is a good chance that all other wallets are gone forever. So if we drop a zero from 5mln TALK, wouldn't it make it too scarce with 300-500k supply?
2) If you place a cap does it mean the ROI will be gradually decreasing in time?
3) 25% sounds good to me
4)5) Servicenodes is a good idea to implement.

Yes, if that is indeed the case. However ,

1) I've noticed that active wallets != circulating supply. The vast majority of coins are kept on exchanges . This is why even coins with large communities struggle with maintaining strong node networks. I think the removal of a zero should be considered. So let's investigate further then come to a decision.
2) No, ROI remains the same.
3) Should we make the minimum 4 or 8 hours ?
4) & )5 Is the cost reasonable ?

Also, should we actively remove the balances of coins we know are in exchanges, to prevent them silently re-introducing those coins later when they have value ?

[George5]

Yes, if that is indeed the case. However ,

1) I've noticed that active wallets != circulating supply. The vast majority of coins are kept on exchanges . This is why even coins with large communities struggle with maintaining strong node networks. I think the removal of a zero should be considered. So let's investigate further then come to a decision.
2) No, ROI remains the same.
3) Should we make the minimum 4 or 8 hours ?
4) & )5 Is the cost reasonable ?

Also, should we actively remove the balances of coins we know are in exchanges, to prevent them silently re-introducing those coins later when they have value ?

1) We should specify that the vast majority of coins are kept on Poloniex exchange I'm sure there is 99,9% chance it won't activate its wallets again. And a couple of millions are held on Yobit which is also not clear what's gonna happen to them.
3) 4hrs sounds good to me.
4) 5) The cost is reasonable cuz as far as I can see from some other MN coins with small communities, there is usually not more than 50 MNs online, sometimes much less. If TALK grows bigger, then we can make some more adjustments to this.

I think it's ok to remove Poloniex balances.

[Blockchain Mechanic]

Yes, if that is indeed the case. However ,

1) I've noticed that active wallets != circulating supply. The vast majority of coins are kept on exchanges . This is why even coins with large communities struggle with maintaining strong node networks. I think the removal of a zero should be considered. So let's investigate further then come to a decision.
2) No, ROI remains the same.
3) Should we make the minimum 4 or 8 hours ?
4) & )5 Is the cost reasonable ?

Also, should we actively remove the balances of coins we know are in exchanges, to prevent them silently re-introducing those coins later when they have value ?

1) We should specify that the vast majority of coins are kept on Poloniex exchange I'm sure there is 99,9% chance it won't activate its wallets again. And a couple of millions are held on Yobit which is also not clear what's gonna happen to them.
3) 4hrs sounds good to me.
4) 5) The cost is reasonable cuz as far as I can see from some other MN coins with small communities, there is usually not more than 50 MNs online, sometimes much less. If TALK grows bigger, then we can make some more adjustments to this.

I think it's ok to remove Poloniex balances.

Great. I have been looking around to see what users want from projects in the crypto space, it seems real life uses other than the p n d cycle have strong pull. I will list TALK as a supported currency in my own project and will try to contact others to do the same.

[George5]

Great. I have been looking around to see what users want from projects in the crypto space, it seems real life uses other than the p n d cycle have strong pull. I will list TALK as a supported currency in my own project and will try to contact others to do the same.

Yes real life use is the best a crypto project can achieve

[Blockchain Mechanic]

Great. I have been looking around to see what users want from projects in the crypto space, it seems real life uses other than the p n d cycle have strong pull. I will list TALK as a supported currency in my own project and will try to contact others to do the same.

Yes real life use is the best a crypto project can achieve

I think we need to notify exchanges now. Is anyone in contact with them ?

Considering that this coin was listed then de-listed from exchanges, should we consider a re-brand ? We'll need a massive push at re-launcg because it would be nice to get it listed on more exchanges and have some hype.

[George5]

I think we need to notify exchanges now. Is anyone in contact with them ?

Considering that this coin was listed then de-listed from exchanges, should we consider a re-brand ? We'll need a massive push at re-launcg because it would be nice to get it listed on more exchanges and have some hype.

There are only two exchanges that I'm aware of: NovaExchange and Yobit. The latter one is unreliable and there is a big chance that they will not even update to a new chain. Too busy scamming people with their p&d ieos and icos.
I will contact Novaexchange but they will most likely ask for the source code.

I'm not sure about the re-brand, what should be the new image for TALK?

But we'll definitely need a new Bitcointalk thread, Twitter account, and probably Discord or Telegram channel for chatting.

[Blockchain Mechanic]

I think we need to notify exchanges now. Is anyone in contact with them ?

Considering that this coin was listed then de-listed from exchanges, should we consider a re-brand ? We'll need a massive push at re-launcg because it would be nice to get it listed on more exchanges and have some hype.

There are only two exchanges that I'm aware of: NovaExchange and Yobit. The latter one is unreliable and there is a big chance that they will not even update to a new chain. Too busy scamming people with their p&d ieos and icos.
I will contact Novaexchange but they will most likely ask for the source code.

I'm not sure about the re-brand, what should be the new image for TALK?

But we'll definitely need a new Bitcointalk thread, Twitter account, and probably Discord or Telegram channel for chatting.

We will make the source code available after the swap is completed. I have it on standby.

Since bct is where most bitcoin/altcoin discussions were/are , talk could expand and become more like a crypto communications coins. potential for development of an app that allows users secure communication, privacy and maybe crypto news feeds.

[four3200]

Since bct is where most bitcoin/altcoin discussions were/are , talk could expand and become more like a crypto communications coins. potential for development of an app that allows users secure communication, privacy and maybe crypto news feeds.

These are 2 different chains.
And should be treated that way.

Noone can communicate with all holders of TALK since it traded on yobit and has Russian and Chinese holdrs.
So depreciating and decapitating a 5 year old WORKING chain is not a good idea.

The idea is to rebrand anyway.
The idea is to trim the deadwood.  
So make it 2 chains.  Like Vericoin and their VRM spinoff.

TALK remains as is;
new chain rebrands to development of an app that allows users secure communication, privacy, crypto news feeds, and more.

If you have the chops, a co-chain, like RADS or NRS.
So TALK can be mined/send/received on the new client, and the old client.

[George5]

Since bct is where most bitcoin/altcoin discussions were/are , talk could expand and become more like a crypto communications coins. potential for development of an app that allows users secure communication, privacy and maybe crypto news feeds.

These are 2 different chains.
And should be treated that way.

Noone can communicate with all holders of TALK since it traded on yobit and has Russian and Chinese holdrs.
So depreciating and decapitating a 5 year old WORKING chain is not a good idea.

The idea is to rebrand anyway.
The idea is to trim the deadwood.  
So make it 2 chains.  Like Vericoin and their VRM spinoff.

TALK remains as is;
new chain rebrands to development of an app that allows users secure communication, privacy, crypto news feeds, and more.

If you have the chops, a co-chain, like RADS or NRS.
So TALK can be mined/send/received on the new client, and the old client.

I think needs to move on as one chain, no need to create multiple chains. What's the point to keep the original 5y.o. chain with no development? No one will be interested at it. Neither Developers, nor exchanges and users.

Luckily we found a Dev who is capable to help upgrade and move the project somewhere. I'm convinced that it is better to upgrade, swap and re-brand if necessary. At least it will breath some life into the project.

P.S. Forget about yobit, they are dead end. Some coin devs were trying to contact them for months if not years to update the clients but they never even responded.

[four3200]

Strongly disagree.
You have a functional block chain that is 5 years old.
https://github.com/BCCproject/BTCtalkcoin-1.50
May 14 2014
That is the VALUE.

Use it as a springboard to create something new.
Okay.
Why not?
But that is something new.
Nonidentical.

I have not seen one project successfully cull the original and working chain, to the benefit of a new chain.
It crushed (killed or mostly_killed) both old and new chains.

SEE:
PAC
PENG
NOTE
MEOW  
TIT
terra
#WAS
pop
and mucho more


Solution.
Just let the (2)TALK listings and (1)chainz be; as is.
Which is do nothing.

The new chain will require
new listing
(doesn't have to be Nova since it excludes USA markets)
and new BE
and new thread
and differing brand.

But that is part of the plan (anyways).

[George5]

Strongly disagree.
You have a functional block chain that is 5 years old.
https://github.com/BCCproject/BTCtalkcoin-1.50
May 14 2014
That is the VALUE.

I also strongly disagree. Doesn't matter how old the chain is. If there is no proper development you can consider the coin dead.
There are tons of examples out there. LEAF, LOT, SBC, BAT, TRC, PXC, BET and many others.

On the other hand if the developers constantly upgrading their projects (that often includes coin swaps), that means that the project is alive and healthy and will most likely attract new users.
Successful projects that swapped: DASH, NEO, XVG, HC. Those are the only ones that come to my mind currently.

The new chain can be easily implemented to chainz explorer and Novaexchange by simply notifying them in advance. Don't see any problem here.
The biggest problem that we may face is a small community, but that also can be solved in time.

[Blockchain Mechanic]

Sorry guys for the silence, will update asap. There is a community i'd like you to join , i think the concept of their project could heavily influnce our rebrand and potentially bring in 200+ new ACTIVE community members.

[Blockchain Mechanic]

Ok, guys Crypto Talk Discord , join there.