Topic: [ANN][MZC][SHA-256] MAZACOIN *First Sovereign Currency* ANDROID WALLET AVAIL.!! - page 35. (Read 278458 times)

Let's take up the Zetacoin stance.  Buy and hold, buy and hold, build, buy and hold.

He speaks the truth. Payu said on skype.
As Walker has said previously add yourself on skype.

Where to you get your news?Like a month ago you said the CNN coverage was going to air in the next few days, you said monday there would be big news announced. I appreciate you trying to keep us updated, but unfortunately nothing you ever say comes true, so as much as I would like to, it's really hard to take you seriously.

looking forward to it....

when you say soon.........

  O.o so much fuds around 


Soon will be released video where Payu explain what´s happening now ;-)

This is a joke.
But it's the same in the last few months.
Pole only care about mining , mining algorithms like it's a damn mining cartel  or union there.

Wake up , the value of the coins doesn't give a damn about the mining , about you miners  about the difficulty or how much you dump or store in your bags.

The value of the coin is about what that coin does , and what mzc does? And can this coin do that other one can't?
Nothing.

Unless you change that , mzc will be worth nothing.

so in other words.........

LOGO is not too good, but I still love this coin. app  wallet feels good.

We don't need to be looking and forking the coin for block reward.  Maybe a fork for diff adjustments or to add merge mining to the coin only.  But the real thing that could help the coin, and the best route would be getting the Lakota to accept the coin and start using it in day to day transactions as well as getting other tribes on board.  As this is the goal of Mazacoin to begin with, meeting that goal will bring with it price adjustments.  Don't change the block chain just to satisfy miners and bagholders, as that will just lead to a dump once the price gets to what they want it at and it won't help the long term viability of the coin.  As a small pool operator myself I don't like the idea of merge mining just because it takes the small pools out of the network and will leave it in the hands of the current big merge mining pools that would possibly add Mazacoin.  It might be good for the blockchain with the hashrate they provide but it puts the chain in the hands of those pools, current Maza pools wouldn't be able to compete with those even if we implemented merge mining on the pools.  So that is the only downside from my standpoint.

32 Satoshi! VERY NICE! Approaching 1 Satoshi ! Superb!

how?

I hard forked AP's mom last night

DO YOU WANT HELP TO DEV TEAM PLEASE ADD ME TO SKYPE : arthur7762 THERE IS PAYU ONLINE AND REST OF US -BAGHOLDERS, DEVS- WE CAN CHANGE EVERYTHINK PLEASE CONNECT US ALL ;-)

Thanks,
George

If you look at what Potcoin just did via a hard fork, they just decided to half their reward and continue to scale it down over a period of time.  Most people would regard this as a sensible move, and in no way does this 'impair the mission' of this coin as it attempts to be a standard means of exchange for a legal cannabis industry. I don't see why you can't merge mine AND impose a block halving, but hey, doing something is better than the current situation, that's for sure

I would suggest that it only be merge mined with bitcoin, but I'd be open. This was the initial intention with mazacoin, but was never implemented in the code.

If maza were mergemined with bitcoin, the hashrate would likely bring the difficulty into the 200+million range, or more. Look at other merge mined coins, like namecoin, ixcoin, devcoin. With difficulties at those levels, it would be much more difficult for a small miner to acquire a large percentage of the day's production for instant dumping.

Would that stop miners from selling maza as soon as they get it? No,. But it would reduce the concentration of maza in the few hands that are seeing it now. I do think that this itself would raise the value of mazacoin considerably.

To be fair, reducing the reward would have a similar effect, but it would change the longer term economics of the coin to benefit the short term desires of traders and miners. It's not clear how changing the long term economics benefits the intended users of maza (the Lakota, and other tribes, remember?)

It is also possible that large pools could mergemine maza, and NOT pay out maza rewards to their miners. This would have the opposite effect that I would intend. I do not expect that this is the majority case - I suspect that pools would attract miners with the additional payout (again putting mazas into a larger number of hands....thus decreasing the amount of pressure that any one miner can exert on the market)

It is, however, clear that increasing the hashrate will secure the blockchain against the current shennanigans going on. It is clear that in order for maza to be accepted widely as currency, the blockchain must be secured.

By providing worthless maza to miners, we only provide the incentive to dump it, rather than hold it or spend it. By allowing smart miners the ability to increase their income, we move maza into a greater number of hands, with each pair of hands making different decisions about how to use, spend, hold, sell their mazas. Mergemining doesn't provide free coins. It provides security.

In no way does it make sense to continue to allow maza to concentrate into the hands a few miners, most of whom have no long term commitment to the success of mazacoin.

Merge mine with what coin? Bitcoin? Zetacoin? I guess the question is, can you merge mine to a coin sharing the same algo, without their extending some kind of recognition to you? If it was merge mined with Bitcoin, wouldn't this just lead to more dumping if you leave the reward system and/or supply targets as is?

To be clear, I was just supporting an idea to merge mine Quark with Bitcoin, but most of Quark has already been mined and Quark gains the advantage of added network hashing power and security. But, if people already mining Bitcoin for example are now getting free Mazacoin on the side while retaining this 'economic structure' as you put it, then that would be even worse for the price??

I've discussed this several times with my team.

We support any forks that have the support of Payu and team. We do not support any further involvement in code development by AnonymousPirate (not that he's doing anything, anyhow), but nor do we support the mining and trading community forking the coin to suit their desires. We do see a need to start another repository, not in the control of AP.

In general we don't support a fork of maza that will simply reduce the mining reward. This alone will do little to address the real issue facing mazacoin right now: Lack of Hashrate.

It's our opinion that the proper way to address the hashrate is to implement mergemining. We are also of the opinion that this will go a long way to increasing the numbers of mazacoin holders, and reduce the overall sell pressure in the market.

It does seem that the defensiveness with which the above was met by AP on twitter when I spoke to him suggests to me that he is heavily mining maza, and doesn't want to increase the numbers of miners, or hashrate. His insistence on "exclusive control" of open source, majority consensus software is laughable, at best. It seems that AP is the largest impediment to any further growth of maza.

We do continue to hold a significant position in mazacoin, and would like to see this succeed, but we don't see the need to radically alter the economic structure to do so.

yup back up to normal now, phew. Mustve been an error on coinmarketcap.

really? look again :-)

Maza coin hell coin, show ur power if u are strong