Topic: Bottlecaps 2.1 UPDATE REQUIRED - HARDFORK JULY 4 2014 to 200% Annual PoS - page 149. (Read 388610 times)

One thing to remember...

This is by my observations of trades. CAP coins are being held the longest. (Compared to crap coins, that are all sold ASAP with every BTC move.) Thus, only those few short-sellers are listing to get rid of them for the rising BTC. Funny thing is, they are devaluing the coin 10x to get the 2x gain on BTC. Thus, morons. lol.

Not to mention, this is the ONLY client I quickly get 15+ connections to.. thus, a lot of people are "POSing" the investments, not mining.

I have swiped up 48,000 coins at a steal, on cryptsy. This lowered the loss from my 27,000 I purchased when the coins were high. Now my average coin price is 0.000045 as opposed to the 0.00015 I paid for the initial 27,000 coins. Not including all that I am continually mining, to keep out of the hands of short-sellers. I keep buying every short-sale I can. (BTC I earned from trading and investing in mcxNOW and mcxFEE-shares.)

Thus, buy every short-sold coin, at your gain, and their loss. The coins will rise like mad when BTC starts to fall. However, BTC will fall only about 50% while CAPs rise back up 1000%, to the previous ground. That is a lot more BTC you can buy at that point, selling at the higher level.

Now, if I could just find a reliable source to sell me hardware or art supplies, for BTC.

Trade tip... Now that BTC is high, and CAP are low, you buy CAP with BTC, not sell. lol. When BTC drops and CAP rises, that is when you sell... Selling again when BTC rises, to buy more CAPs. Until you own everything!

Still, I am having the major issue with the client not even showing for almost five minutes, after it has started. (Doesn't show on the screen, but the icon is there, frozen.) Sending transactions seems real tedious, as it does the same slow-down. Though only takes about a minute for the (not responding) frozen program to begin working and let me know it didn't just crash, before I can send the next transaction.

Might just be a windows thing, something like compile optimized settings wrong or database bottlenecking, on a windows system.

Some personal things have come up over the last 24 hours I will be out of town for a n indefinite amount of time. Hopefully just a few days. But I should be able to accomplish the update from my laptop while away. So still should have the wallet by this weekend.

As far as the name change I see both sides. Caps future will be decided by you guys so we will discuss it more and come to a conclusion soon. But it will be left as is for now


Really glad to see you again. I was hoping we hadn't lost you in the previous issues we had. Glad to see you again and thanks for your support!

Changing the name of the coin is not a good idea.  'Bottlecaps' is the established brand.  CAPs caught my attention not for any link to Fallout but for the interesting dichotomy of an advanced currency (that scares and confuses many average people) manifested to a simple non threatening item and has a retro appeal to the young and a nostalgic appeal to the older.  The fact many people do link it with Fallout isn't bad either...right there you have instant recognition with the entire gamer demographic.

Bottlecaps is a brand that can be developed.  The job now is to develop the brand not re-brand.

Changing the name as a method to attract investors is weak and very short sighted and essentially a hollow cheap trick.  Will you change the name every 3 months to trick foolish investors instead of simply developing the brand and attracting smart investors?

CAPs has a good technical design and good active people behind it.  Now is the time for people to put their 'thinking CAPs' on and develop some useful services (ie not gambling games) that will let this coin stand out and get noticed.

**If you do change the name 'Capinium' is the most retarded name for mass adoption I have ever heard.

I don't think ch anging the name is a great idea... but of course, I haven't done anything with my CAPs except hold them in a wallet that I may or may not even have access to anymore

https://cryptocointalk.com/topic/1438-thebottlebank/

Liquidity, liquidity, liquidity - CAP is great!  

I don't really like banks or centralization... but perhaps its worth a shot ? It's an 'experimental' crypto after all !

I also do not believe a name change to be a fix.

Still, here is a proposal if people are concern with the bottle/fallout angle:

Call them "cap"

Make cap a noun instead of an abbreviation. A cap is just a new denomination. This is no different than dollar, lire, bitcoin, baht, dinar...

Just drop the bottle/fallout part from the marketing, and use a neutral logo like any other coin (I suggest to go simple with a denomination character like BTC).

This might be the path of least resistance to resolve the "low value" perception without completely throwing away what made this coin (slightly) different.

Personally I think the name Bottlecaps should stay.  It's something that makes the name special, as every other alt out there is named after something expensive with the name Coin after it, or something really stupid.  I really doubt people looking to invest will say  "wow there is Plutonium coin, selling next to Emerald Coin, Gold Coin, Diamond Coin, Titanium Coin and Ruby coin, looks like a great investment.  Bottlecaps sticks out from the long line of other names, and has some following behind it.

A name change isn't going to fix the coin.  Getting on some sales promotions, or other ways of using the coin is what will drive the price up.  Right now we have fallen off a few websites becuase of the forking problem/the problem with our Block explorers compared to other coins, and the lack of people driving to get them listed again.  We also need to work at building relations with a few of those venders (like the Steam games or sextoy sales site)  and get them to take the coins again. 

I myself am going to try to find a few more types of Card codes I can sell via my Apocalypse Pete's webstore, to get some Bottlecaps flowing.  Was thinking maybe Facebook cards, Karmacoin cards, Android cards, and a few others that I can find that will be accepted in the US, as my iTunes idea failed miserably, since they can only be used in Canada from what I have found out. 

Considering that CAP is likely to remain a very low "denomination" relative to bitcoin... bottlecaps seems to be an honest fit  

I am fine with dropping the bottlecap name, but I doubt it is the main problem.

Seems instead CAP is victim of its own good algo for difficulty adjustment, making it valuable to mine/dump at any price. Not the first to say it.

CAP main liquidity flow is from miners to a handful of investor waiting for the automated dump. CAP won't suddenly catch on while most investors are just doing bottom fishing.

What could be done?
  - Make it hard for automated mine/dump operation to be profitable. That would be a good differentiator among the alt coins.
  - Attract new investors with a higher POS.
  - Other idea?

Is this what its really all about :investors?  Because i can not buy that newcomers will imply that bottlecaps is "low value". The term "Bitcoin" is what? Bits of coins or if you are an oldschooler 2 bits = quarter . So if its all just about the investor: i think each and every one that has some bottlecaps are investors. As we either had to mine them or had to work to purchase them which in turn does makes us investors. i do not think of them as a "low value". i do not think other holders do either.If it was just all about investors then why not just name it platinum and gold caps  then, get my drift?

In my opinion, a name change would be beneficial. I've discussed the topic with Mullick briefly and we came to the conclusion that it's the right play.

"BottleCaps" might seem like a fine name to those familiar with "Fallout"...but to the common altcoin investor or newcomer, the name implies "low value." BottleCaps are something most people throw away on a daily basis. Bitcoin has a market cap surpassing $3 billion...the Litecoin market cap is working toward $100,000,000...and BottleCaps sounds more like something you'd find in a dump than a commodity you would mine or invest in over other options. Another issue is that BottleCaps are becoming associated with constant forking issues. Distancing the currency from past issues now that they are resolved is a plus. BottleCaps have been around long enough now that the entire market cap should be worth more than 17 Bitcoins -- let's face it: if something doesn't change, we're on a sinking ship here. Sometimes you just have to be honest with yourself.

Speaking of being honest -- I didn't start mining or buying Bottlecaps initially solely because the name implied "stay away." With all of the altcoins out there, I didn't see the point in putting energy into researching/buying/mining coins that sounded like junk such as BottleCaps, HoboNickels, Elephantcoins, BarbecueCoins, etc. Call me naive for overlooking BottleCaps based on the name...but looking back it was definitely the right play.

We're talking about peoples' hard-earned money and valuable time here; there are so many choices in the altcoin world that I absolutely believe the name is holding BottleCaps back. Once BottleCaps was perfected, I realized it may be the best PoS coin out there. Another bonus (in my opinion) is that it is managed by the Cryptsy dev team -- this also contributed to my interest.

Although the price has been steadily dropping, I do believe the current price represents a great value regardless of the name. We know the development team is for real and they're here to stay for a while -- that fact alone gives CAP an advantage many other altcoins don't have.

It's hard enough for most people to invest in digital currencies...let alone altcoins...let alone an altcoin named "BottleCaps." As somebody with a sizable percentage of minted BottleCaps, I'm telling you right now -- the name has to go.

Although I've seen a few coins roll out recently with a similar concept, I like the idea of naming it as if it's a new element. For example, "Capinium." In my opinion, it would be an advantage if the code could remain, "CAP" to soften the transition (although I don't consider this a requirement.)

Regardless of the new name, I honestly feel that a new identity, a fresh new logo, and a small marketing push, combined with this existing great community and the Cryptsy dev team, would pack a punch. A great benefit of a fair release is that new people drawn in by the re-brand can start investing in CAP without feeling like they're too late to the party. If executed properly, I think we'd see rapid growth in the network speed and market cap alike.

I'm currently tied up with a Megacoin project...but I'd be happy to offer assistance with this process where I can.

Personally, I like "Bottle Caps".

However, if you are going for a more serious name, (Moving away from caps, by rebranding), I suggest the following...

CAP (Keeping the trade symbol)
- Capricoin (Because I am a capricorn. 10th sign in zodiac. Ram with fish tail. Earth-sign, ruled by Saturn.
- Coin App (Removing identification and hijacking commonly searched terms)
- Check App (Implying these are like a form of bank-check)
- Coin Amp (Suggesting that it amplifies... "grows")
- Capital Pay Coin
- Capital Coin
- Currency App Coin


If the CAP isn't important...

Aero Coin (It's in the cloud. It's streamlined.)
Net Coin (Implying internet or "net gain")
Trade Coin (Implying trade-investments and/or trade-job)
Digital Check (Blunt) or Digi-check or e-check

Just filling space now.. lol.

Ok, back to my corner.

I think the slow start-up should be fixed before anything. That might be why people are not using it. Takes too long just to even show on the screen. Longer just to send a transaction from a wallet full of transactions, as the chain grows. (Even the new empty wallet I unloaded all 30,000 coins to, is taking forever just to load and send. This is on the windows compiled version.)

regarding the name change:

i say keep as it is.

if something drastic happened to the world tomorrow, and money was not able to be printed, no internet and no cell phone usage,paper money and metal coins would be just like in "Fallout" and "Wasteland".Trading and barter would quickly become the norm.Bitcoins separates away from fiat as should bottlecaps separates from bitcoin in its uniqueness and why it was created in the first place.

Cheap and disposable is determined by the eyes of the beholder, yeah if your a billionaire , yeah bottlecaps may be cheap and disposable, but if you are not utter rich, bottlecaps may just be the right fit.

Ok what we need is a coin control wallet.

Ill work on that and re phrase a few things in the wallet to the correct statements. Ill have it done in a few days

Buy caps!

EDIT: A few people had suggested a name change. Thinking Bottlecaps and/or caps implies disposable or "cheap"

What does everyone think of this? Is a name change in order?  If so ill do a poll

Also note...

The "Confirm transaction fee" warning still says...
"This transaction is over the size limit. You can still send it for a fee of ____ CAP, which goes to the nodes that process your transaction and helps to support the network. Do you want to pay the fee?"

However, it DOES NOT go "to the nodes that process your transactions", it DOES "get destroyed", as you stated earlier. (False advertisement of operation of the services. But that should simply be fixed to state the following. "..., which will be removed from circulation, to stimulate and maintain coin value.")

Also note... "over the size limit"... What limit? Size of what? Where does it show the "transaction size". Why is is not sending my large transaction and one small transaction? Why does it seem to collect and send the dust, making it "over the size limit", beyond our control.

Besides, sending 1000 micro-transactions which turn into ONE lump transaction, should not be taxed. You already taxed the prior sender, who sent me the dust. Oh wait, you didn't, because the dust is the dust YOU created by the POS coins of 0.01 and mined coins of 10, which the system created, which now costs me 0.01 - 0.04 to send. That is ass-backwards. We should be rewarded for turning those 1000 micro transactions into one large TX of 500 coins, since "this does not go to the nodes processing the TX's".

Tax the poor! lol

Sorry, just venting again.

Would be nice to see what "would not be a TX over the size limit", so we can just send those, then re-send them again, into a consolidated TX. (Oh wait, that would create more TX's which would slow down the network and fatten the chain, as opposed to the ones that consolidate thousands into one.)

I am sure that theory sounded good on paper, or in someones head... but in reality, the practice of hidden uncontrollable charges for things we didn't do, is just poor service. But that is my complaint with most coins.

Since there is no "processing fee/reward", it won't be worth running the computer, processing transactions, for the low POS return, which we can't adjust. (Well, we can, by merging all the dust into large tx's of 500 coins, provided we have enough coins for profit of processing all the networks incoming tx's.)

Would be better, in the long-run, to have less POS rewards, and have them consolidated into "whole coins, or more", before creating that return-coin TX. (The mined POS coin).

Eg, taking 200 total as 20 of 10, not 20 as 2 of 10... then rewarding the POS after ten blocks as 1 coin, as opposed to 0.01 - 0.003 after 20. (Thus, reward the POS as the single lump of 200.1 to 200.03) This would make the network constantly "reduce the dust, free of charge".

P.S. I am up to being charged 0.048 now, sending only 500 coins at a time, to myself. How high is this going to go when I am down to 3000 TX's of 0.001 - 0.01? All the POS rewards from my mined coins.

I like that... send 1000, it asks for 0.03, which I canceled... sent it as 500 and 500 instead, it took 0.01 and 0.01... How does that work? That would have been 0.02 to send the 1000... This is so random and inconsistent for fees.

Just a note...

The wallet seems to be getting real slow and clunky the more transactions I get. I am moving the coins to a fresh wallet, but it is ignoring my "-mintxrelayfee=0.00000001 -mintxfee=0.00000001" settings, still trying to charge me 0.01 to send 500 coins (Which is hundreds of "stake coin rewards" of 0.01, mixed with actual 10 coin earnings.

The wallet keeps "not responding", in attempts to send (on the send tx page), when canceled... since I cancel, because it is trying to charge me an unacceptable price (one I didn't set), to the transaction. Charges that only exist, due to the "programs operation, creating dust-coins", not charges that exist because "I created dust-coins".

(Eg, the whole dust transaction fee should not exist for "system created dust", which is unavoidable and beyond the users control. We don't tell it to create dust, it just does it by itself. As opposed to us sending a tx of 0.001 thousands of times. Which should be charged a reasonable fee of 0.001% for those small transactions of man-made dust.)

Also, takes about ten minutes to open the wallet, since it is still doing that "check-wallet" (hard coded), every time it opens. Not to mention it consumes over 117,000 KB in memory. (As much as 3x a web-browser when it has many tabs open.)

Good to see the coins at a new low. Great time to buy with the high value of BTC. Even better to mine, since the hoppers are no longer jumping in and out of the coins.

Love the new look of the coins first-post.

Still need an official website?

Oh hey,  we are back to that old matter ....

: D

Obviously you know the answer.



Gee mullick I feel like some curse came down onto CAPs, I certainly hope I was not involved !

Well you know what they say.... , it was the worst of times it was the best if times....

I bet you know more about checkpoints and POS now ?



Dr goose , I think you're idea is bold , but one potentially negative effect could be the lack of new liquid CAPital {lol} , because such a policy,  would be detrimental to further development.

I could see how someone could turn around and say , " but Bitcoin" and talk about the centralized nature in which it exists, but there are other vectors to the equation,  big ones.

I dont think Cap Currency {lol} could bootstrap like that .

To investors,  price goes up price goes down , welcome to cryptocurrency, the value is what we all make it .

I didn't agree with this idea at first because of what PoS stake interest did to CENT's price.  However i could agree with a  15-20% per year PoS generation If it required 1 year to mature.  Or possibly a graduated system where investors stake 10% the first year, 15% the next and so on.  We need to find a balance between generating long term bag holders and watering down the coin supply.  I think the annual PoS bonus may do this.

I love the name bottlecaps but I see it's up for debate due to its impression on 'traditional' investors (Disclosure: I loved the game fallout so I have a biased opinion). I think the CAP acronym is still valuable.  Just to throw out some ideas: CryptoCapitol, CryptoCAP, and CAPcurrency are some mainstream options.

A slight diff adjustment to a 5-10% higher diff per mh/s (would spoil my good mining) but also deter the autosellers.  This would prevent the current GDC situation: It is still profitable to mine and dump gdc into oblivion.

Getting CAP on another exchange or two would help attract some more needed attention too.  Of course trading options, uses and services are key.

Just my two cents...

I think we should change the name to CryptoAPPs, or leave it bottlecaps and change the 3 letters to BTL

Here is a make or break proposal for CAPs:
   Make the POS equivalent to at least 30% interest per year... for the next 10 years.
   For holders it means a doubling of their position every 3 years.

Why?

  Be bold. Capture the imagination and people will hold.

  Stay generic and conservative... and look forward to become irrelevant among most alt-coins.

===

Will the price crash? Who knows. The equilibrium between holders and what is left to trade might be an interesting experiment.

At this point I believe the design decision should be about *positioning* the coin among the holders.

Holders are the best at promoting and supporting a market. A coin needs "thousands" of evangelists to build confidence. A few dozen of developers and believers is not enough.

Of course inflation matters and some adjustment to POS beyond the 10 years has to be written in stone, but it is not a time to think conservatively.

Designing for the far future is irrelevant if a coin does not make it on short term.

It is about survival in the growing shadow of BTC... and a coin worth holding NOW could be among the few last still standing in people's wallet 10 years down the road.

Again:
   Be bold. Capture the imagination and people will hold.

(All IMHO)