Topic: [ANN] Mjollnircoin - MNR - Ultra-secure, Fast Transactions & ASIC resistant - page 67. (Read 80182 times)
April 24, 2014, 09:39:40 PM
I am definitely in. Addresses heavycoins shortcomings, responsive devs, good long term mining prospects. You should talk to cbuchner1 about ccminer, from what I hear in the cudaminer thread it shouldn't be too hard to tweak it for MNR. Then you could add nvidia friendly to your coins list of attributes.
April 24, 2014, 08:37:06 PM
More soon on the IPO btw,
If you can make any changes as talked about previously to the IPO then that is "icing on the cake". If not, I certainly wouldn't worry much about it as you are already using Escrow which many other coins don't do.
With the bounties taken out we're only talking about 0.5% which is about as small as you can get these days for any new coin. You've documented what the premine is used for and thus anyone who actually reads the op message will know it serves a purpose and isn't lining anyone's wallet.
You could argue (if there was even a reason) this is a good thing because it helps to set the value from day one before the first coin is ever sold or purchased. This CAN IN FACT help the miners who do not invest in the IPO because right out of the gate there is an established baseline value for the coin. So even those people who mine and sell (mine/dump) new coins will benefit as well as those who wish to hold for further added value down the road as the coin becomes even more valued.
Carlo
April 24, 2014, 07:49:55 PM
Nice! I think this will definitely help (surely can't hurt) this coin from both a mining perspective as there will never be any sudden drops in reward block sizes. I would imagine it will help from a market standpoint also for the same reason. Also from about the 5th month onward there is a nice slow reduction in coinage being produced which will should help to elevate the price ever so slowly (hopefully more due to other factors) just based on mint rate.
This should track well across the board for both miners and investors.
You might want to change the op message.
Block halving: Every 420K blocks (~2 years)
Starting block reward: Increased for the first 4000 blocks
to something like:
First week reward: 125 MNR dropping to 50 MNR in 5.5 days
Weeks 2 -21: 50 MNR
Block reduction after week 21: Slow steady decrease of 0.85% every 11 days
or similar which reflects the new mint policy.
Do you need any help getting any pools lined up or do you have that covered?
At this point in time, what help do you need from the community?
This should track well across the board for both miners and investors.
You might want to change the op message.
Block halving: Every 420K blocks (~2 years)
Starting block reward: Increased for the first 4000 blocks
to something like:
First week reward: 125 MNR dropping to 50 MNR in 5.5 days
Weeks 2 -21: 50 MNR
Block reduction after week 21: Slow steady decrease of 0.85% every 11 days
or similar which reflects the new mint policy.
Do you need any help getting any pools lined up or do you have that covered?
At this point in time, what help do you need from the community?
Yes, I think your suggestions made some substantial improvements to Mjollnircoin,
AFAIK, there is no pool lined up. Would be nice to have one
Another thing that would be helpfull is a GPU miner (there should be one available, otherwise someone would just patch one up based on the cpuminer)
April 24, 2014, 07:38:24 PM
Nice! I think this will definitely help (surely can't hurt) this coin from both a mining perspective as there will never be any sudden drops in reward block sizes. I would imagine it will help from a market standpoint also for the same reason. Also from about the 5th month onward there is a nice slow reduction in coinage being produced which will should help to elevate the price ever so slowly (hopefully more due to other factors) just based on mint rate.
This should track well across the board for both miners and investors.
You might want to change the op message.
Block halving: Every 420K blocks (~2 years)
Starting block reward: Increased for the first 4000 blocks
to something like:
First week reward: 125 MNR dropping to 50 MNR in 5.5 days
Weeks 2 -21: 50 MNR
Block reduction after week 21: Slow steady decrease of 0.85% every 11 days
or similar which reflects the new mint policy.
Do you need any help getting any pools lined up or do you have that covered?
At this point in time, what help do you need from the community?
This should track well across the board for both miners and investors.
You might want to change the op message.
Block halving: Every 420K blocks (~2 years)
Starting block reward: Increased for the first 4000 blocks
to something like:
First week reward: 125 MNR dropping to 50 MNR in 5.5 days
Weeks 2 -21: 50 MNR
Block reduction after week 21: Slow steady decrease of 0.85% every 11 days
or similar which reflects the new mint policy.
Do you need any help getting any pools lined up or do you have that covered?
At this point in time, what help do you need from the community?
April 24, 2014, 06:57:18 PM
April 24, 2014, 12:52:30 PM
Will the wallet have a built in cpu miner like HVC wallet did or will we have to use a separate mining application?
It also has a built-in CPU miner, but the external mining application has a much better performance
April 24, 2014, 06:09:22 AM
Thanks for your reply, it is much more constructive then the rest of the thread. The suggestion to delay the release of the IPO funds over a 60 day period is well received but it will take some re-organization on our part (which should not be too much of a hassle)
Also, concercing the release of the wallet I will follow up your suggestion and have a package ready 24h - 48h before launch day
Originally we forked Vertcoin to launch another Scrypt-N but then we decided against it; Not only are there already enough Adapative Scrypt N coins but it also exposes a real security concern in combination with the difficulty re-targeting algorithm (KGW, see Auroracoin). Besides, it adds a lot of stress for the graphic card - High energy consumption, high temperature and lower hash rates. So, we found that HVC's proof of work algorithm was much better performing in terms of energy consumption vs hash rate and without the KGW weaknesses. Additionally, HVC can be CPU and GPU mined thus, those parts were interchanged. A part from differences in the wallet version, Mjollnircoin has a working coin control feature where HVC does not (which would be the only real feature we inherited from Vertcoin, even tho it is a little outdated given the recent work done in Bitcoin Core)
Also, concercing the release of the wallet I will follow up your suggestion and have a package ready 24h - 48h before launch day
Originally we forked Vertcoin to launch another Scrypt-N but then we decided against it; Not only are there already enough Adapative Scrypt N coins but it also exposes a real security concern in combination with the difficulty re-targeting algorithm (KGW, see Auroracoin). Besides, it adds a lot of stress for the graphic card - High energy consumption, high temperature and lower hash rates. So, we found that HVC's proof of work algorithm was much better performing in terms of energy consumption vs hash rate and without the KGW weaknesses. Additionally, HVC can be CPU and GPU mined thus, those parts were interchanged. A part from differences in the wallet version, Mjollnircoin has a working coin control feature where HVC does not (which would be the only real feature we inherited from Vertcoin, even tho it is a little outdated given the recent work done in Bitcoin Core)
I think you'll find if you can make the change to the IPO it will be better received by many people. Not all people of course, because many will call any coin with an IPO or premine a "scam". Ignore them...
With summer coming up quickly, you made a great choice in selecting HVC due to lower heat and energy costs. Your timing of launch is also pretty good considering Heavy Coin is having a lot of troubles at present which I probably contributed to, due to a topic I posted on 4/9 which more or less found a flaw in their timeline that could cause security issues in a few months. The devs don't want to make a change so a lot of people are starting to abandon the coin. This coin DOES NOT HAVE THAT ISSUE which is great!
However, I typically "tear" things apart questioning why things are/were done the way they are. So if you don't mind, please allow me to share some thoughts and/or questions:
What I didn't like about HVC is that approximately 90% of the coins would be mined in the first 3 to 4 months. Super high inflation and right off the bat the value of the coin is set low do to high initial volume. This coin will be all most the extreme opposite which is good.
It's currently listed at 42,000,000 total coins. Forgetting about block halving which is approximately every 1.6 years, there will be 30 blocks per hour (every 2 minutes) or 720 blocks per day. At 50 coins per block that is 36,000 coins per day or 3,240,000 roughly the first 90 days which is only 7.7 percent of total coins. Much nicer then 90% which is roughly what HeavyCoin looks like at present.
Again following the logic above, at 36,000 coins per day it would take 1166.66 days to mine or 3.19 years assuming there was no block halving. The timeline again from this metric looks fantastic.
As already stated there are 720 blocks per day. The block reward is currently set to half itself at 420,000 blocks which is every 583.33 days or about 1.6 years. Again, nothing wrong with this BUT may I make a suggestion (if doable) that you consider. This is only that (a suggestion). Instead of halving the block reward every 1.6 years, have you thought about doing a monthly or weekly reduction in block reward?
The reason I ask this, is that say 1.6 years from now the coin is worth X amount which is just profitable to mine. Come the next day the reward is halved and now mining profitability is also halved which could mean a lot of people stop mining the coins. Granted hopefully the market catches up but anytime there is a sudden "halving" of reward or profitability you get a shake up, lose miners and the market bounces around a bit until it again stabilizes.
Instead maybe consider a straight 6% reduction in coins per month. There would never be a 50% drop this way. The market can easily adjust to a 6% drop in coins produced each month by easily going up in value that much each month! This also helps solve the "inflation" issue most coins have. BTW, starting with 36,000 coins per day on month 1 there would be 18226 at month 12 (just about half).
Along the same lines as above you don't need to use 6%. You could decide on a straight 5% per month and even do something like start it after the first 90 days or 3 months. Just ideas.
But the point I was trying to make is that this could very well help boost the value of the coin in the market because it would be producing less and less coins each month but there would never be a sudden decline
in miners which could happen more easily at the 1.6 year mark.
On a separate topic I noticed you removed the section on bounties and lowered the premine from 0.75% to 0.5%. I think this was a very good move that will pay off well. 0.5% is very manageable and a lot lower then many new coins. I believe this will benefit the coin as it will be easier to attract those who were mining HeavyCoin (as well as many other coins) as they already know the advantages of lower energy and heat produced using the Hefty1 algorithm.
You also seem to show a good capacity to listen to the community (so far) and take criticism/ideas very well without assuming your way is "the only way". This is nice and refreshing and goes to show this may very well be the "community coin" to watch and take notes from.
Although probably too early as the coin hasn't even launched yet, If I were to speculate, I'd say this coin has a tremendous amount of things going well or being done correctly and short of the 0.5% premine which I'm not a fan of, nothing wrong with it.
My 2 cents for what it's worth,
Carlo
April 23, 2014, 09:13:59 PM
Will the wallet have a built in cpu miner like HVC wallet did or will we have to use a separate mining application?
April 23, 2014, 06:45:16 PM
Yes, this is a clone of HVC - but not a fork (Mjollnircoin was forked from Vertcoin)
We believe that decentralized block voting does not change anything - It is simply a means of imposing illegitimate control over the currency - by miners (who are not even the majority of the users)
The ability to vote does not positively change anything; This so called democracy is bogus and undemocratic as over half of the voters do not understand the implications of their vote. Instead, only direct action and other alternatives (by the developers) are more likely to result in a better coin.
Also, we have given some thought about your statements on the pre-mine and come to the conclusion that we can easily do without - it merely seemed a good way to reserve funds but once the mining phase has started, but it won't be before long that we'd accumulate the same sum of coins - Therefore, the pre-mine, including any bounty, will be removed entirely for a comeback at a later time
As for the IPO and your counter solution, we do not believe that imposing a 1% fee via a pool will be sufficient to make Mjollnir a sustainable project - And besides, there already is an Investor, canceling it now would be simply too late. Also, as for the other arguments; We do not intend this to be a hobby or classroom project; Relying on the community to complete tasks with no incentives other then "believing in the coin" will not bring many fruits (in innovative terms). On the contrary, submitted works usually suffer from amateurism compared to work on a professional level. Besides, wouldn't a true believer be fully committed to Bitcoin - the one and only, instead of an Alt coin - assuming they have a different motive other than pure profit and pump/dump schemes.
Still, I appreciated your feed-back and thank you for that,
We believe that decentralized block voting does not change anything - It is simply a means of imposing illegitimate control over the currency - by miners (who are not even the majority of the users)
The ability to vote does not positively change anything; This so called democracy is bogus and undemocratic as over half of the voters do not understand the implications of their vote. Instead, only direct action and other alternatives (by the developers) are more likely to result in a better coin.
Also, we have given some thought about your statements on the pre-mine and come to the conclusion that we can easily do without - it merely seemed a good way to reserve funds but once the mining phase has started, but it won't be before long that we'd accumulate the same sum of coins - Therefore, the pre-mine, including any bounty, will be removed entirely for a comeback at a later time
As for the IPO and your counter solution, we do not believe that imposing a 1% fee via a pool will be sufficient to make Mjollnir a sustainable project - And besides, there already is an Investor, canceling it now would be simply too late. Also, as for the other arguments; We do not intend this to be a hobby or classroom project; Relying on the community to complete tasks with no incentives other then "believing in the coin" will not bring many fruits (in innovative terms). On the contrary, submitted works usually suffer from amateurism compared to work on a professional level. Besides, wouldn't a true believer be fully committed to Bitcoin - the one and only, instead of an Alt coin - assuming they have a different motive other than pure profit and pump/dump schemes.
Still, I appreciated your feed-back and thank you for that,
No argument from me on voting. Just check the HVY forum and you'll see I'm dead against it.
That's great news to hear on the premine.
I understand what you are saying with the IPO and already having an investor involved. Here is what I'd suggest if you want to keep it.
Eliminate bounties for the 3 pools. They will not need bounties as they will be charging a mining fee and transaction fees, so they already have motivation and don't need bounties. Use the bounties previously assigned to the pools for something else in the PR/Marketing end of things since you don't have anything there.
HeavyCoin had a big IPO (much larger then what you are doing). While it may not be fact there is a perception the devs have went into hiding and aren't supporting the coin. With that said, some of the most likely candidates you will get to mine this coin will come from that community and they sort of feel burnt by the devs for lack of communication. What I might suggest (and only that) is maybe re-work the escrow of the IPO so funds aren't released to you at launch but X amount at 30 days, 45 days and 60 days assuming you are taking part in the community and making an effort. Of course bounties could be released directly from escrow.
I don't know if those things are doable at this point or not but these changes would go A LONG WAY I'm sure with the Heavy Coin community right now and build up some additional credibility that is lacking from the devs there.
One other suggestion. Get all the files uploaded a day or two ahead of time and password protect the files. Allow people to download them and have them ready. Then during launch post the password here. This will help with a smoother launch.
Carlo
PS what did you fork from Vertcoin?
Thanks for your reply, it is much more constructive then the rest of the thread. The suggestion to delay the release of the IPO funds over a 60 day period is well received but it will take some re-organization on our part (which should not be too much of a hassle)
Also, concercing the release of the wallet I will follow up your suggestion and have a package ready 24h - 48h before launch day
Originally we forked Vertcoin to launch another Scrypt-N but then we decided against it; Not only are there already enough Adapative Scrypt N coins but it also exposes a real security concern in combination with the difficulty re-targeting algorithm (KGW, see Auroracoin). Besides, it adds a lot of stress for the graphic card - High energy consumption, high temperature and lower hash rates. So, we found that HVC's proof of work algorithm was much better performing in terms of energy consumption vs hash rate and without the KGW weaknesses. Additionally, HVC can be CPU and GPU mined thus, those parts were interchanged. A part from differences in the wallet version, Mjollnircoin has a working coin control feature where HVC does not (which would be the only real feature we inherited from Vertcoin, even tho it is a little outdated given the recent work done in Bitcoin Core)
April 23, 2014, 05:46:00 PM
another HVC coin?
another HVC scam cpu-only )))Next time read the op message and the "whole" 1 page thread before making a comment that is wrong.
They have Bounties listed for GPU miners. This coin is based on HeavyCoin which has two good miners for both amd and nvidia so this coin will have GPU miners within days if not by launch time.
Source code is readily available so there is no question this is going to be a CPU and GPU coin.
This coin also fixes the one thing wrong with HeavyCoin (voting) and keeps all the parts that worked well. Also very, very small premine.
What is SCAM about it?
April 23, 2014, 05:11:51 PM
another HVC coin?
another HVC scam cpu-only ))) April 23, 2014, 05:07:19 PM
Yes, this is a clone of HVC - but not a fork (Mjollnircoin was forked from Vertcoin)
We believe that decentralized block voting does not change anything - It is simply a means of imposing illegitimate control over the currency - by miners (who are not even the majority of the users)
The ability to vote does not positively change anything; This so called democracy is bogus and undemocratic as over half of the voters do not understand the implications of their vote. Instead, only direct action and other alternatives (by the developers) are more likely to result in a better coin.
Also, we have given some thought about your statements on the pre-mine and come to the conclusion that we can easily do without - it merely seemed a good way to reserve funds but once the mining phase has started, but it won't be before long that we'd accumulate the same sum of coins - Therefore, the pre-mine, including any bounty, will be removed entirely for a comeback at a later time
As for the IPO and your counter solution, we do not believe that imposing a 1% fee via a pool will be sufficient to make Mjollnir a sustainable project - And besides, there already is an Investor, canceling it now would be simply too late. Also, as for the other arguments; We do not intend this to be a hobby or classroom project; Relying on the community to complete tasks with no incentives other then "believing in the coin" will not bring many fruits (in innovative terms). On the contrary, submitted works usually suffer from amateurism compared to work on a professional level. Besides, wouldn't a true believer be fully committed to Bitcoin - the one and only, instead of an Alt coin - assuming they have a different motive other than pure profit and pump/dump schemes.
Still, I appreciated your feed-back and thank you for that,
We believe that decentralized block voting does not change anything - It is simply a means of imposing illegitimate control over the currency - by miners (who are not even the majority of the users)
The ability to vote does not positively change anything; This so called democracy is bogus and undemocratic as over half of the voters do not understand the implications of their vote. Instead, only direct action and other alternatives (by the developers) are more likely to result in a better coin.
Also, we have given some thought about your statements on the pre-mine and come to the conclusion that we can easily do without - it merely seemed a good way to reserve funds but once the mining phase has started, but it won't be before long that we'd accumulate the same sum of coins - Therefore, the pre-mine, including any bounty, will be removed entirely for a comeback at a later time
As for the IPO and your counter solution, we do not believe that imposing a 1% fee via a pool will be sufficient to make Mjollnir a sustainable project - And besides, there already is an Investor, canceling it now would be simply too late. Also, as for the other arguments; We do not intend this to be a hobby or classroom project; Relying on the community to complete tasks with no incentives other then "believing in the coin" will not bring many fruits (in innovative terms). On the contrary, submitted works usually suffer from amateurism compared to work on a professional level. Besides, wouldn't a true believer be fully committed to Bitcoin - the one and only, instead of an Alt coin - assuming they have a different motive other than pure profit and pump/dump schemes.
Still, I appreciated your feed-back and thank you for that,
No argument from me on voting. Just check the HVY forum and you'll see I'm dead against it.
That's great news to hear on the premine.
I understand what you are saying with the IPO and already having an investor involved. Here is what I'd suggest if you want to keep it.
Eliminate bounties for the 3 pools. They will not need bounties as they will be charging a mining fee and transaction fees, so they already have motivation and don't need bounties. Use the bounties previously assigned to the pools for something else in the PR/Marketing end of things since you don't have anything there.
HeavyCoin had a big IPO (much larger then what you are doing). While it may not be fact there is a perception the devs have went into hiding and aren't supporting the coin. With that said, some of the most likely candidates you will get to mine this coin will come from that community and they sort of feel burnt by the devs for lack of communication. What I might suggest (and only that) is maybe re-work the escrow of the IPO so funds aren't released to you at launch but X amount at 30 days, 45 days and 60 days assuming you are taking part in the community and making an effort. Of course bounties could be released directly from escrow.
I don't know if those things are doable at this point or not but these changes would go A LONG WAY I'm sure with the Heavy Coin community right now and build up some additional credibility that is lacking from the devs there.
One other suggestion. Get all the files uploaded a day or two ahead of time and password protect the files. Allow people to download them and have them ready. Then during launch post the password here. This will help with a smoother launch.
Carlo
PS what did you fork from Vertcoin?
April 23, 2014, 02:36:26 PM
this is the first clone of heavycoin
gratz
gratz
Thanks! Heavycoin deserves more siblings, we have seen enough Scrypt clones already
April 23, 2014, 02:27:07 PM
Thor will hammer this scamcoin down! 
How does the hammer hammer itself ?
How can you even dare to call this a scamcoin with your -12 trust rating?
April 23, 2014, 02:18:39 PM
this is the first clone of heavycoin
gratz
gratz
April 23, 2014, 02:17:13 PM
April 23, 2014, 05:33:39 AM
Thor will hammer this scamcoin down!
April 22, 2014, 02:42:52 PM
This is more or less a blatent copy of HeavyCoin https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-hvc-heavycoin-ultra-secure-decentralized-block-reward-voting-fast-506774
The only real difference is the dropping of the decentralized voting which was probably a good idea.
You say:
If this is truly going to be a "community" coin then there should be no IPO or premine. You really can't have both concepts of "no ownership" and also wanting to control premine/ipo.
There was no "devs" designing this coin as it was "borrowed/copied". WHY IN THE HELL do you need a premine/IPO regardless of size?
You do not need any bounties as such either, because again, it's already been done for the original coin this was copied from. Code will only need very slight tweaks. Hardly anything in need of premine or IPO compensation. None of the reasons given are very good.
If this is going to work as envisioned as a "peer-to-peer" then there should be very little money needed. If you feel there is a need then run a pool with 1% fee to cover costs.
What I'd suggest instead is to get the community behind the coin with ideas for marketing and such before you even set a date for launch. Get people lined up in different positions to execute certain things that will be needed. People who believe in the coin will do this with their own time without compensation if they "believe".
Examples:
Translate this announcement to another language (ask and a community member could possibly do this)
GPU miner (exisiting code from ccminer and cgminer used by HVC will require very minimal code change)
Mobile Wallet (ask and a community member could possibly do this)
First Mining Pool (bounties are not needed as pool operators can charge a fee)
First Block Explorer (very minor changes needed to use HVC block explorers)
Second Mining Pool (bounties are not needed as pool operators can charge a fee)
Second Block Explorer (very minor changes needed to use HVC block explorers)
Third Mining Pool (bounties are not needed as pool operators can charge a fee)
So if you want this to be a community or "peer-to-peer" coin then start it this way from the beginning and bag any notions of premining and IPOs. Right now in this market it just "screams" SCAM regardless of intention.
The only real difference is the dropping of the decentralized voting which was probably a good idea.
You say:
Quote
Mjollnircoin uses peer-to-peer technology to operate with no central authority or banks; managing transactions and the issuing of mjollnircoins is carried out collectively by the network. There is no concept of ownership (nobody controls or owns the Mjollnircoin network) and there are no restrictions on who can take part.
If this is truly going to be a "community" coin then there should be no IPO or premine. You really can't have both concepts of "no ownership" and also wanting to control premine/ipo.
There was no "devs" designing this coin as it was "borrowed/copied". WHY IN THE HELL do you need a premine/IPO regardless of size?
You do not need any bounties as such either, because again, it's already been done for the original coin this was copied from. Code will only need very slight tweaks. Hardly anything in need of premine or IPO compensation. None of the reasons given are very good.
If this is going to work as envisioned as a "peer-to-peer" then there should be very little money needed. If you feel there is a need then run a pool with 1% fee to cover costs.
What I'd suggest instead is to get the community behind the coin with ideas for marketing and such before you even set a date for launch. Get people lined up in different positions to execute certain things that will be needed. People who believe in the coin will do this with their own time without compensation if they "believe".
Examples:
Translate this announcement to another language (ask and a community member could possibly do this)
GPU miner (exisiting code from ccminer and cgminer used by HVC will require very minimal code change)
Mobile Wallet (ask and a community member could possibly do this)
First Mining Pool (bounties are not needed as pool operators can charge a fee)
First Block Explorer (very minor changes needed to use HVC block explorers)
Second Mining Pool (bounties are not needed as pool operators can charge a fee)
Second Block Explorer (very minor changes needed to use HVC block explorers)
Third Mining Pool (bounties are not needed as pool operators can charge a fee)
So if you want this to be a community or "peer-to-peer" coin then start it this way from the beginning and bag any notions of premining and IPOs. Right now in this market it just "screams" SCAM regardless of intention.
April 22, 2014, 02:10:09 PM
The name seems unpronouncable.
I dunno what you're talking about! Here's a guide:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF_DJzgNnF0#t=27s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0SnsP8YEN8#t=9s
April 21, 2014, 03:29:12 PM
The name seems unpronouncable. Anyway, good luck with your project!
Jump to: