[ANN] SuperCoin [TC Team] Now with 100%POS Multipool

[pak]

Super staking is fantastic
https://i.imgur.com/I4lzLRk.png

[lobo13hf]

Buy support  is huge on bittrex! low sell orders everybody knows SuperCoin is going really high!...

[dodgecharger]

Buy support  is huge on bittrex! low sell orders everybody knows SuperCoin is going really high!...

super is easy 1000% up 

ps
I was in super when he got 15k sat 

[kopam]

Just to trow in an idea to Griffth and the team.

In the past Super got some bad reputation from Poloniex, i would say that both sides had its part in that. But now there is a new dev team and some great support. Things are going great and i would say that having Poloniex can only be beneficial for Supercoin.

So if the new team can contact them and start talks on getting Super back to Poloniex would be great.

Would be great if all members of the community give an opinion on that. But mine is that we should do that, as it can be only positive for the coin !

[Grgechkapitalac]

Just to trow in an idea to Griffth and the team.

In the past Super got some bad reputation from Poloniex, i would say that both sides had its part in that. But now there is a new dev team and some great support. Things are going great and i would say that having Poloniex can only be beneficial for Supercoin.

So if the new team can contact them and start talks on getting Super back to Poloniex would be great.

Would be great if all members of the community give an opinion on that. But mine is that we should do that, as it can be only positive for the coin !

That was one of the oldest suggestions that was not accepted before.

It can only help the coin, since when you use google searching for "supercoin", one of the first hits is "Poloniex rejected Supercoin", and that causes fear, uncertainty and doubt. It would be good to end that ugly story once and for all. IMHO that would boost Supercoin more than reviews in less-known blogs and sites.

[lobo13hf]

Just to trow in an idea to Griffth and the team.

In the past Super got some bad reputation from Poloniex, i would say that both sides had its part in that. But now there is a new dev team and some great support. Things are going great and i would say that having Poloniex can only be beneficial for Supercoin.

So if the new team can contact them and start talks on getting Super back to Poloniex would be great.

Would be great if all members of the community give an opinion on that. But mine is that we should do that, as it can be only positive for the coin !

That was one of the oldest suggestions that was not accepted before.

It can only help the coin, since when you use google searching for "supercoin", one of the first hits is "Poloniex rejected Supercoin", and that causes fear, uncertainty and doubt. It would be good to end that ugly story once and for all. IMHO that would boost Supercoin more than reviews in less-known blogs and sites.

Heres why so Griffth is this true? if  so can this be fix?

attention to this part of the ANN post:

- Total PoW coins will be 18.2 millions.
- Total coins (including PoS) will be about 50,000,000.

And these parts of the source code:

Code:

if (dAmount <= 0.0 || dAmount > 150000000.0)

Code:

static const int64_t MAX_MONEY = 150000000 * COIN;
static const int64_t POW_MAX_MONEY = 50000000 * COIN; 

MAX_MONEY is pretty much what it sounds like. This means that the actual maximum supply of SuperCoin is 150 million, not 50 million. Furthermore, the maximum PoW coins is 50 million, rather than the claimed 18.2 million. The 150 million number appears twice in the code, so it can hardly be considered an accident.

We did not find evidence of an existing hidden premine, but extra coins could potentially be minted all at once at the end of the PoW phase, sent to exchanges via the "anon" feature, and dumped.

We have other concerns about the coin, particularly concerning the proposed method of anonymity, but the shenanigans with the maximum supply is sufficient for us to reject this coin.

[jvdp]

Just to trow in an idea to Griffth and the team.

In the past Super got some bad reputation from Poloniex, i would say that both sides had its part in that. But now there is a new dev team and some great support. Things are going great and i would say that having Poloniex can only be beneficial for Supercoin.

So if the new team can contact them and start talks on getting Super back to Poloniex would be great.

Would be great if all members of the community give an opinion on that. But mine is that we should do that, as it can be only positive for the coin !

That was one of the oldest suggestions that was not accepted before.

It can only help the coin, since when you use google searching for "supercoin", one of the first hits is "Poloniex rejected Supercoin", and that causes fear, uncertainty and doubt. It would be good to end that ugly story once and for all. IMHO that would boost Supercoin more than reviews in less-known blogs and sites.

Heres why so Griffth is this true? if  so can this be fix?

attention to this part of the ANN post:

- Total PoW coins will be 18.2 millions.
- Total coins (including PoS) will be about 50,000,000.

And these parts of the source code:

Code:

if (dAmount <= 0.0 || dAmount > 150000000.0)

Code:

static const int64_t MAX_MONEY = 150000000 * COIN;
static const int64_t POW_MAX_MONEY = 50000000 * COIN; 

MAX_MONEY is pretty much what it sounds like. This means that the actual maximum supply of SuperCoin is 150 million, not 50 million. Furthermore, the maximum PoW coins is 50 million, rather than the claimed 18.2 million. The 150 million number appears twice in the code, so it can hardly be considered an accident.

We did not find evidence of an existing hidden premine, but extra coins could potentially be minted all at once at the end of the PoW phase, sent to exchanges via the "anon" feature, and dumped.

We have other concerns about the coin, particularly concerning the proposed method of anonymity, but the shenanigans with the maximum supply is sufficient for us to reject this coin.

Not sure where this comes from, but looking at the source code on GitHub I see the following.

if (dAmount <= 0.0 || dAmount > 50000000.0)
101           throw JSONRPCError(RPC_TYPE_ERROR, "Invalid amount");

from main.h
static const int64_t MAX_MONEY = 50000000 * COIN;

next to that MAX_MONEY is not about the maximum amount of coins afaik..

[waffles99]

This was cleared up in June the original url is a 404 this is a cached version from google

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gwFiPDHUmRgJ:bitcoinmafia.com/bittys-blog/supercoin-scandal/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

The problem in SuperCoin’s case, however, is that their interpretation of the code snippet was not only wrong, it was “oh hell no” wrong. DigiByte over at Bitcoin Talk explains in detail the reason it is wrong, but let me try to sum it up. This is the snippet of offending code:
if (dAmount <= 0.0 || dAmount > 150000000.0)

and
static const int64_t MAX_MONEY = 150000000 * COIN;
static const int64_t POW_MAX_MONEY = 50000000 * COIN;

Let’s look at the first line of code. dAmount is a variable representing a transaction amount. So what that line of code is saying is “IF the transaction amount is less than or equal to 0 OR if it is greater than 150,000,000 coins THEN [do whatever comes next in the coin's source code]“. That’s all. Nothing nefarious or mysterious there.

As for the second part of the code, MAX_MONEY and POW_MAX_MONEY do NOT indicate how many coins will be generated. All that those values do is establish a threshold for the maximum transaction size that can be sent over the network.

[kopam]

Well yes that was my idea, to fix that and so to say - clear the name of Supercoin.
There are a lot of people that trade at Poloniex and if they come across Supercoin, they get to that ugly part etc.
If Griffith and the team can talk to Polo and discuss everything and fix all the problems so they can get out with an announcement that everything is okay with the coin and they start trading it again. Well that will be REALLY good advertising for the coin ! As you said, that will be much better than any social media etc at the moment.

So i would say that this is something with high priority.

[Ticked]

Just to trow in an idea to Griffth and the team.

In the past Super got some bad reputation from Poloniex, i would say that both sides had its part in that. But now there is a new dev team and some great support. Things are going great and i would say that having Poloniex can only be beneficial for Supercoin.

So if the new team can contact them and start talks on getting Super back to Poloniex would be great.

Would be great if all members of the community give an opinion on that. But mine is that we should do that, as it can be only positive for the coin !

This was cleared up in June the original url is a 404 this is a cached version from google

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gwFiPDHUmRgJ:bitcoinmafia.com/bittys-blog/supercoin-scandal/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

The problem in SuperCoin’s case, however, is that their interpretation of the code snippet was not only wrong, it was “oh hell no” wrong. DigiByte over at Bitcoin Talk explains in detail the reason it is wrong, but let me try to sum it up. This is the snippet of offending code:
if (dAmount <= 0.0 || dAmount > 150000000.0)

and
static const int64_t MAX_MONEY = 150000000 * COIN;
static const int64_t POW_MAX_MONEY = 50000000 * COIN;

Let’s look at the first line of code. dAmount is a variable representing a transaction amount. So what that line of code is saying is “IF the transaction amount is less than or equal to 0 OR if it is greater than 150,000,000 coins THEN [do whatever comes next in the coin's source code]“. That’s all. Nothing nefarious or mysterious there.

As for the second part of the code, MAX_MONEY and POW_MAX_MONEY do NOT indicate how many coins will be generated. All that those values do is establish a threshold for the maximum transaction size that can be sent over the network.

Cleared up, but not widely known.  Yet.

I agree with Kopam.  Addressing this PR issue is a fantastic idea.  It may even get Polo to address their error in understanding.  This would do great things for Supercoin.

[fuze0000]

Supercoin can use all the positive PR it can get its hands on!

[Fierce]

When will supercoin be worth $1

[Ticked]

When will supercoin be worth $1

when its time to take a serious vacation

[lobo13hf]

When will supercoin be worth $1

is not gonna be soon but it will it took BTC to get a good price so theres a long processes  along the way but the main key is patience!

[mdtspain]

Hello,

Does anybody know who controled the website, Facebook, Twitter, etc.... accounts? We need to get hold of those accounts before we can hope that we can see a serious rise for Supercoin.

[askcoin2]

Does SuperCoin wallet compile in static mode?

[vegasguy]

Is there a max pos reward? I have my coins in 1000 coin blocks. Can I go higher without losing pos reward? Anyone know for a fact on this?

Vegas

[Ticked]

Hello,

Does anybody know who controled the website, Facebook, Twitter, etc.... accounts? We need to get hold of those accounts before we can hope that we can see a serious rise for Supercoin.

I don't have handles on twitter/facebook. supercointeam has them. Hope he will see this and provide you the related info.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=333682

Last login: 10/28

Though the website may be controlled by someone else, memory is failing me here.

[CoinMin3r]

Hello,

Does anybody know who controled the website, Facebook, Twitter, etc.... accounts? We need to get hold of those accounts before we can hope that we can see a serious rise for Supercoin.

"supercointeam" used to control them but he hadn't logged in here since a while.

[mdtspain]

Does SuperCoin wallet compile in static mode?

Hi,

We will proberly release an updated wallet this weekend. Then we will also release a source code for the exchanges ( Basic wallet )

If you have any questions you can allways PM me or Griffith.