Topic: [ANN] [HVC] Heavycoin - Ultra-secure, Decentralized Block Reward Voting, Fast - page 66. (Read 542292 times)

Yes no point of doing a multipool it will only decrease security of the network.
What HVC need is to be accepted in services like prypto.

The question for us then, would be why would miners mine on an HVC multipool if BC already has that niche filled? An HVC multipool would lose the efficiency of Hefty1, and decreases the network hashrate. If we go PoS, sure, multipool would be great. But buy support for a weaker network doesn't seem like it's a great idea.

Thank you for the data

3 x 270x System

Way,way lower. I am getting 480W for a 80Mhash 4x 280x rig. Apparently not everyone are getting numbers as low but 600W for 80Mhash is very easy to achieve.

Can someone tell me what is the usual heavycoin power usage compared to scrypt? Lower, higher? I need a specific value for the hashrate you get. Best would be for udnervolted 280x or 290.

I am trying to add heavy to my site and need this data.

Putting another option out here:

As GPU mining profitability is down there is a lot of network power available for rent. Renting 70Ghash of Hefty power would cost about 10BTC a day. With that we would own half the network at the moment and by voting 0 we could bring down the block reward to somewhere 250HVC per block.
Now obviously 10BTC a day is quite a big sum and we would have to stay mining for far longer than 1 day. But keep in mind we would also be getting a lot of HVC and bringing down the supply which will theoretically drive the prices up. So this would be like a investment fund in a way. Some of the HVC could be sold to sustain the operation.

Obviously the plan is not perfect and involves some risks and problems:

Minimum initial total investment would be about 50BTC to keep mining for 5 days and bring the block reward down to 250HCV. This means we would need quite a lot of investors. I could personally chip in 2-3BTC a week but we would still need tens of more investors.

Sustainability ? Unless we would keep this going it's like a bandage that actually does not solve the problem. The minute we would stop the reward would bounce back up unless better awareness of the miners. The positive outlook is that if the plan works and limiting supply will start to drive the price up we could keep going partly funding the operation with accumulated HVC's and maybe attracting more BTC investors to the project.

70GH of network power is also quite a handful to oversee. Ideally this power could come from bigger farms with adequate management software because setting everything up 100-200Mhash at a time is highly time consuming.

I would argue that in this current climate of tumbling coin prices that their multipool, by creating buy support, has essentially made their coin stand out as one which is bucking the downward trend, this in turn has attracted investors and those who feel its a safe store of value while everything else decreases.

Check again now, and you'll find different. ( of the 60 listed: 14@1, 27@512, 15@1024, 4@other )

BC Multipool only buys between 50-100BTC/day based on Twitter. Driving force on their price is strong community involvement, CoinKite adoption, PoS model, etc.

I agree, we need to go PoS for sustain if we want to be relevant. All I'm saying is that if we start a multipool, we significantly damage the hashrate of the HVC network. Not to mention, every coin is looking at starting multipools... Maybe the Altpocalypse is starting? Death by multipools?

What I'm getting at is, at least as long as we're PoW, the best way to up the price is to get wider adoption and lower the vote. If we can convince Kekkak to make final phase PoS then certainly, we should get a multipool then.

blackcoins multipool helps a lot, that's one of the reasons their price is doing so well.

Yep, and take a look at the most recent blocks found at ZHPool http://heavycoin.zhpool.com/index.php?page=statistics&action=blocks

5 of the last blocks have a vote of 1024

Carlo

Another thing people need to realize is that your vote does not count unless you specifically find a block. So naturally those with the most mining power have the biggest say in the overall vote.

Not saying i support a multipool right now but I see no more risk than what will be presented in the sustain phase, in fact less risk now than later.


Agreed. But....

The current concern is that sustain phase is coming very quickly and in the current design sustain is very open to network attack if people bail during said phase (granted speculation). But for people not to bail HVC has to increase in value considerable to keep miners mining (securing the network). It is naive to think miners will mine at a loss just to support the coin during the sustain phase. Im not suggesting things be changed immediately but I do think a plan has to be made and ready to be implemented if the scenario plays out as such. Who will invest jump on board (merchants) with HVC if there is a logical foreseeable security issue with the final stage?

BTW a multipool would be good if HVC went POS for sustain phase.  

MULTIPOOLS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR PoW COINS

Seriously guys. PoS coins don't need miners to maintain the blockchain. PoW does. If we send miners off to a multipool, we become open for an attack. How about we do, as KrazyKrypto is getting at, some community outreach and look at making some REAL WORLD APPLICATIONS. A community looking only for profit isn't going anywhere.

Is HVC plan about a multipool too?

Mintpal @ Slow Deposit.

What is that !! Revolution?


Retweeted by Heavycoin News
CryptoN ‏@premjeraz 13m
Im just sold my #blackcoin's for 0.00036,bought them for 0.0000355. Now some funds moving to #heavycoin, others to buyback cheaper #bc later

Can you explain more?

How does having a high sell price not help?  If people want HVC they need to pay for it.  Do they not?

You can not double up unless you got the coin to cheap in the first place and actually see the value it might have?