Topic: A Coin Made Especially for Miners. - page 5. (Read 3655 times)

I'm chuckling every time I see him say "SHAW256" instead of "sha256d".

It's for miners, why not something to go with that?

RockCoin (ROK)
StoneCoin (STN)
AxeCoin (AXE)
PickCoin (PIK)

Coins that the rest of us can't even take part in because we don't have $50,000 rigs.... why should we bother with coins that are there for the rich and powerful only?

If you can't get enough people on board your coin is doomed to fail from the start. The purpose of money is not "the safe transaction of value" although that is one of its aims. It is in fact the "Efficient transfer of value" which is a different thing all together. What's efficient about only being able to trade with three other people because they're the only ones willing to take part in xCoin market because its so difficult to get in to or to get coin in order to trade? The value might oscillate a lot with unsafe transfer of values (such as Bitcoin at the moment as it's still a new currency) but at least there are a lot more people to trade with because more people can get a hold of a few coins in order to pass around or trade with.  

Thanks.

Any preferences for a name?  How's SantaCoin?

What about making it future proof by using SHAW256 instead of scrypt.

Shaw means it may get killed easier but I don't care about that - merge mining is a huge benefit and soon even the small guy will own an ASIC.

Therefore, I think SHAW256 is the best way to go as far as you, the miners, are concerned.  If this coin was for me I'd so Scrypt to prevent any chance of anyone killing it with a 51% attack.

Ondrata, how am I launching a crappy coin when you don't even know what it is.

Nice attitude.

And isn't this the best way to not launch crappy coins?

A) Ask the audience what they like?

B) Give minimum 3 day heads up and SHA256d to have the coin killed if it is trash?

Who has done this for this community?

I killed my CatholicCoin and OrphanCoin idea due to too many people not liking it even though plenty did and it might have survived a sneak launch or I could have forced another CrapCoin down your throats with a scrypt coin that can't be killed.

If everyone did what I'm doing, no CrapCoins would make it to exchanges.

Can you people not even recognize honesty when you see it? Maybe you all deserve to be buried under thousands of worthless coins.  In the next 24 months there's gonna be over 3,000 alt coins on the market.

My honest and open approach prevents that.  

Sounds cool.  I'll definitely follow it's release.  Good luck

Oh man... you are asking indirectly why people hate crappy coins and then you want to create another one.

Here is why people hate them:
- most of them add 0 new value (thats 99% of coins) - people think forking litecoin plus changing constants in code makes new coin with added value - that is false of course
- most of people creating new coin think (as you do), that main purpose of coin is mining - that is false too of course; main purpose (if we don't take experimenting with cryptography as main purpose) is safe transaction of value from one user to another user - serious coins are not made to make any subject rich (neither devs, miners or scammers)
- many of devs care more about coin name than about it's "guts"
- lot of devs don't understand the fundamentals of coins

I mean no offense versus you, but please don't step to same river again - lot of people are already drowning in this river.
You think you have something revolutionary - but as DeathAndTaxes said - that thought is flawed - you can't know how many real users do you have. There were attemps to make benefit for small miners like in YAC (at least i think that was the coin name - coin minable by cpu only), but every coin has two sides - so it opened doors for botnets.

Like i said i mean no offense. But please don't make another crappy coin and instead of it use your time and power for making service for any already stable coin like BTC, LTC, FTC - and we will all profit

No, but that's a good guess.

I don't want to give anymore hints cause I want to me the first to launch this feature since I thought of it.

I wish there was a programmer I trusted to run this by them.  The Hazard guy ain't responding.

But I'm not socialist bro, and I'm launching this particular coin mainly cause I tried mining and it sucked cause I didn't have a huge rig.  Why should the majority suffer when they have the power to write their own ticket?

And I promise the big rigs will be happy too and this feature will encourage more mining not less.  It's fair to everyone but more-so to the smaller miner, the smaller the bigger the benefit.

But I promise it's not a feature any miner, big or small, will dislike.

In fact, after mining with this feature all other mining will appear, archaic, dead, boring and unfair if you're small.

I sincerely expect most if not all new coins from now on to employ this "VGB Protocol" feature.

I can't say anymore - too many idea thieves lurk about.  

Well, lets wait and hear his solution if he does in fact have one.

From what I gathered, every time a block is mined, the dev takes a 1% cut and the rest of us just mine blocks. I suspect that if a user only manages to mine one block, then they're given a bit of a bonus (linked to the difficulty no doubt) to encourage them to keep at it, while larger miners aren't given any help but no penalties either allowing them to mine as much as possible. The other solution would be to increase the difficulty for larger miners while giving smaller units the lower difficulty blocks...dunno though >.<;

Sounds like this is pooling all the blocks and giving people a percentage... that is going to make people destroy the coin by their own greed.  Sounds like Marxism and why it will never work, to me...

Rewarding smaller investors is actually the basis of capitalism... otherwise you just end up with Microsoft and nothing else, because microsoft own everything. Then again, decentralized currencies are the bane of Marxist ideology...so that'd be a bad idea.

I'd be interested in hearing more about this... going to call it the MarxistCoin?

Yesterday I thought a new coin cost $10,000 to launch that's why I wanted 25% and was a bit worried about a coin getting killed.

Dude, launching a coin is way cheaper than that.  If it dies it deserves it and I'll be out a bit of money.  No big deal in my mind. 

I'm by no means advocating Scrypt as I don't really understand one or the other. However merge mining isn't the top of my priorities. If needs must I'll simply purchase the parts for a new system and have it run independently as a server more than likely.

Considering you're actually putting money into this, I'm kinda worried for your bank manager that you don't care if it gets killed. Hehe. I'm sure the miners will put the bounties together to upgrade and develop so that the coin doesn't get squashed under the foot of the mighty asic.

How is scrypt quicker?  I tried mining LTC AND it was the lamest thing. 

And don't you want the option to merge mine with Bitcoin?   Think about a year from now when you may buy an ASIC, it would be nice to merge mine Bitcoin and this coin.

I think SHAW256 is the best for these reasons, its future proof.

And I think most coins today avoid SHAW256 to avoid killer 51% attacks by ASICS.  I don't care about that, if this coin gets killed it deserves the brutal death it gets.

scrypt is apparently better and quicker. However my personal vendetta would be which ever is most secure and I have a hard time understanding why bitcoin uses sha256d instead of sha512... but my opinion here is someone tainted by newbism.

What do yo guys think:  SHA256d for merged mining or scrypt?

I haven't talked to any programmers so I don't know what it would take to code this feature but in my mind it should be fairly simple.  I did take an intro to C++ class back in college.  Ha.

There is a simple way and it also makes mining more fun for everyone, to reward the smaller miner, on a % basis, more so than the larger miners.  But they would all get the same benefits. 

I'm not exactly sure how you're going to manage the % basis to the smaller guy unless there's a slight transfer of wealth going on...or perhaps IP addresses aren't mining as much as they could be. I don't see how you're going to overcome the barrier of them using virtual machines to masquerade as smaller machines to get the better %. I think D&T has the same concern.

Now as for features: Support linux! (It's hard to find an alt-coin that has rpms for Linux, especially mining clients...at least, I'm finding it tricky).