Topic: [ANN][HLM] HELIUM - page 132. (Read 189458 times)

Just to be clear.  As noted in the AMA we are not supporting SPR held on Yobit. If you have coins there, we will not be giving any Helium coins to Yobit exchange and so you will need to be in control of any SPR funds held there.

Thanks for the response.

We are talking crypto here.

Not everyone holds their coins in their wallets for their own personal reasons. Some put coins on an exchange and set them at a predetermined sale price. Others put coins on exchanges and forget about them.

I personally leave my coins in my wallet (my sig is a tongue in cheek about all the cryptos lost from exchanges "going under") until I am ready to move them. I asked the question because it needed to be asked. Might not have been for my benefit but questions need to be asked and answered for every to be aware and might not have thought to ask.


EDIT: Also it has been known in the past for coins to be "lost" from exchanges during this process. It has happened and no I am no saying BitTrex would do this. I only used them in my example here and above as that is my main exchange.

We are in discussions with Bittrex to help assist. If they are in agreement then users will be able to hold their SPR in their Bittrex controlled address / wallet. Bittrex would be acting as the third party here, crediting the addresses it holds in their wallet. If you have your SPR in a wallet you control then the entire redemption process will run through you, opposed to a third party in Bittrex.



Friendly reminder to come join the Helium Slack channel, which is by far the best place to find out information and become involved: https://heliumslack.herokuapp.com/

It is but natural to hold your SPR to your wallet. It is the only way to hold your relationship with the stake  via SPR address. Addresses are unique and reside on the blockchain so you must keep your coins to local wallet.

@ coins101 and/or KarmaShark

I was not in the AMA so not sure if this was asked.

About the snap shot. Are only coins in local wallet counted?

Basically what I mean is if coins are on an exchange will we have to pull them out and put them in our local wallet or will you exchange one for one with coins on say BitTrex and then it will be up to BitTrex to distribute the coins?

Since the redemption is a 1:1 matching we will be creating an exact match for circulating supply on SPR, based off of the snapshot. Because we are looking at a long window (6 months+) for redemption we expect people to be redeeming coins over that time period as they become aware. For total coin count we have looked at 20m however nothing is set in stone.

Have you yet to clarify what percentage of the coin supply will be given out during the redemption?

We have yet to release a snapshot date for the Spreadcoin blockchain. When we do it will be with plenty of advanced notice to the public.


The transition from SPR to HLM is a coin redemption, opposed to a swap. You will be able to keep your SPR in addition to your HLM once the con redemption is complete. In this case you are literally getting 2 for the price of 1.

IMO the price of spreadcoin is only going to go higher. The more that people see the project and want to get in, the more they will realize they need spreadcoin. Especially when they announce the date and have things in order and more definitive, people are going to want to get in on the action. I wouldnt wait and I would say the spike is most likely caused by people looking to trade it into helium.

i just like the name HELIUM.

so is it too late to buy spreadcoin? spread itself is a nice coin, now holders have chance to swap into a better one.

but recent spike makes me scared. still missing the cheap coins.

We can do POS or we can always just do what ethereum does, say POS is coming , but never actually have it come, so asics arent made. Also could say that we will change algorithms if asics are made. I like the idea of masternodes having votes in these types of things like in other coins.

Here is just my  three cents on the asic front.

Does not matter if the devs plan on using the, building them, selling them or anything else down the road. Whatever algo is chosen and the coin does well and other coins follow then you can bet asics will be out.

Hasn't this been the pattern? Sha, scrypt, all the x's, quark and the rest.

You can bet if spread-x would be more popular and worth it then the asic companies would have built one.

Also don't think we won't see an equihash asic if the algo stays popular and other coins use it.

Just about every algo that has been "asic proof" has been "proofed". Also don't think those asics just popped up. They were used for months before being sold to the public.

ASICS are a huge problem that we are now only realizing the effect of years after. Mining on other coins is completely centralized because 1 or 2 companies are making all the mining equipment and if they feel an update should be blocked, they will block it, despite the user sentiment. No matter if you think that you can have a company that will have ethics and distribute fairly, in the end they wont because they are a business and only wish to maximize profit. My opinion is GPU keeps it the most fair while securing the network. I like POS but there is also a fair criticism that it also leads to centralization. Having many pools with GPU mining saw the most decentralized era bitcoin ever had. Sure there were moments where some pools had more than 51%, but hash power was easily moved over to other pools. Now we basically have bitmain which controls more than 51% but it is distributed between pools so it is pseudo decentralized. Hashpower cant be moved away from pools because the regular person no longer has hardware to move over.

I'm out as well. I preferred PoS.

ASIC  ?  Goodbye, friend. I'm sorry what I'm loitering following this topic.

Some good discussion on the ASIC front.


As mentioned, we are fortunate to have relevant experience on the team in the area of mining, specifically ASIC''s. I will reiterate this is simply a consideration of ours and is longer term. The primary focus for us right now is to launch the network without hitch and work towards our goals as outlined in the road map. The mining industry is a cut throat business, and building a successful miner takes a unique skill set (over and above Time and Money). Rest assured, we will make an informed decision when the time is right and only after we have done considerable due diligence.

The decentralization is the key element to avoid the acquisition of dominance of a certain group in the initial stage; the issue is that you cannot avoid it, just put a delay on it.

It can be a long term feature, like the ICE-Age of Ethereum, or it could lead to an ASIC viability like any other crypto, but just remember that the "centralization"concept means also volume on a daily basis, and volume means market capitalization.

You cannot acquire success without having a third-party infrastructure backbone, and it's simply called market approval.

In my experience the ASIC technology it's unfortunately a wrong step, because it leads to an excess of centralization  in the mining process (easy build-up of farms) and consequently a bigger issue related to 51% attacks (double spending).

A path with a CPU compatibility in the testnet, with a near-0 distribution with an early stage it would be fair, associated to a random distribution. Then, following the client's releases and patches, it could be scheduled a VGA startup phase, which would imply a near-immediate market approval, efficient step-up and distribution phase. Have a look at ZEC emission rate, and what brought to ZEC/BTC: it started with hype, and due the latter it vanished, like a leaf of ice in the desert.

Don't give so much importance to the algo, the emission plan it's one of the keys to the success of a coin.

If the SPR network reaches sufficient value, the free market is going to take those cheap miners and resell them on eBay for x10 what you sold them for.  If the free market deems the value of those miners to be much higher than the price you sell them for, they WILL be sold at that much higher price.  Only difference is whether you think that extra cash is better off in your bank account (and funding HLM development) or in the hands of resellers.

Not only that, but if there is sufficient demand, it is only a matter of time until someone else comes along and designs their own chips and miners.


Mining will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS centralize to a degree, no matter how much you try to fight it.  You won't win if you try to battle the economics of scale.


ASICs take time AND money to design.  I say it is putting the cart before the horse because HLM needs to prove it is economically viable enough to develop ASICs for before such an investment would be wise.


If decentralization is the mantra of HLM, then as Gladimor said you should choose a memory intensive algorithm like DaggerHashimoto or Equihash.  You shouldn't be worried about developing ASICs for HLM, you should be worried about preventing ASICs for HLM!

In my opinion, I would NOT recommend X11.  It's GPU and ASIC friendly now, but that won't last long.  We are still on the first generation of X11 ASICs.  Once generation 2 rolls around, GPUs won't be able to compete. 

Also, can anyone name a successful SHA-256 or Scrypt coin that isn't Bitcoin or Litecoin (or merge mined with BTC or LTC)?  People invest in ASICs to mine the main coin associated with them, and DASH is pretty much THE X11 coin.  A lot of miners end up only mining the smaller coins when their profitability is higher than the main coin, and then immediately dump them.  If HLM uses X11, you are gonna get a lot of DASH miners only mining it when the profitability is high and repeatedly dumping HLM into oblivion.

I say just use one of the plethora of lesser known GPU algorithms out there (NIST5, Lyra2RE, etc.) and call it a day.  HLM can start off as a GPU-only coin but the possibility of ASICs down the road won't necessarily be ruled out.


Another good point.  A coin can't be decentralized if the devs are controlling the flow of mining equipment!

A direct feed of ASIC from the developer of the coin has some pretty evident and potentially harmful consequences, like the devs centralization of hashing power.

It would be better eventually to adopt a solution like DGB as an example, which has an ASIC and VGA support on it's own, due the usage of different algos. Problem solved.