Topic: [ANN] Woodcoin [LOG] Pure Skein POW, Logarithmic Release, No Premine nor ICO - page 23. (Read 126093 times)

I got connections but not downloading blocks ........... restarted wallet but still there is problem....

I think this can mine woodcoin, -a skein2


https://github.com/tpruvot/ccminer/releases/tag/1.6.5-tpruvot

is there nvidia ccminer windows binary ?

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/ccn-episode-13-middle-earths-cryptocurrency/

Interview with a man who claims to have worked intimately with our own Funkenstein.

funk where are you ? not posting about pluto ?

It's ashame theres no Rentable DoubleSkein rigs ;c

This is really awesome.

I wholeheartedly agree with your "no merge" statement. If we're going to have a concensus network with multiple clients, a free range of used code would be best rather than everything being inherent of something else. So, for example, let's use the same general idea, but I really like how each project will take on a level of ambiguity of its own.

As for the direction of code, "In Funk We Trust" really comes to my mind. I think I can give a really sucessful example for a coin I've been involved a little bit in for a while. When Clams started out nearly a year ago, it was simply a fork of Blackcoin, which had its inherent forks (Peercoin, and so on). Now, however, it's taken on multiple characteristics of its own, and doesn't follow any code line of any other coin. The most important thing is when to know (key word, when) you should add a commit, and when not to. For example, it has some BIPS implemented, and some not implemented. It has the bitcoin autotools build system, which most coins don't have but has become a huge asset. I could go on and on here, but just one of these things can make a huge difference in the overall prospect of our user base, while another could make them neutral or turn them away. The important thing is leaving out the "extra", or feature creep that will turn users off. Again, it depends on the time. This is what makes coins truely great. From my experience, it's important to simply make the best decision on behalf on the coin at its current state (however impossible that may be) and not try to dilute it into just "being like these other coins". This is where your personal preference comes in, and you need to nitpick the code. There really isn't any other way. This is what will make Woodcoin, Woodcoin.

I almost think any indirect question regarding how to aim the project properly is almost a fallacy, but I see where you're trying to go with getting a general concensus of code direction. These new projects (in my opinion) should broaden our base for incoming developers, so that's the best thing really to do. I think in the case of Woodcoin, you really are the best judge. In fact, that's really the best thing you can do. In my opinion, this is what separates your style and other coin devs that would simply add feature creep. You're a thinker before a doer.

I hope that made a little bit of sense.  

TLDR: In Funk We Trust!