And for cheating I use standard 2.2.2 wallet.
Anyone may wait when I increase percentage and use it for mining himself.
Goodbye
Topic: Bottlecaps 2.1 UPDATE REQUIRED - HARDFORK JULY 4 2014 to 200% Annual PoS - page 43. (Read 388610 times)
October 28, 2017, 10:28:51 AM
If you not want - wait Tranz.
And for cheating I use standard 2.2.2 wallet.
Anyone may wait when I increase percentage and use it for mining himself.
Goodbye
And for cheating I use standard 2.2.2 wallet.
Anyone may wait when I increase percentage and use it for mining himself.
Goodbye
October 28, 2017, 08:21:04 AM
So lets get this straight.
We are considering a voting system weighted by size of holding om a proposal from someone who brags about holding ~10% of current supply
That same person admits to be using a supposed exploit only he can fix to cheat the community and unfairly gain coins....
On principle you can go take a running jump.
I wouldn't trust your code anyway
We are considering a voting system weighted by size of holding om a proposal from someone who brags about holding ~10% of current supply
That same person admits to be using a supposed exploit only he can fix to cheat the community and unfairly gain coins....
On principle you can go take a running jump.
I wouldn't trust your code anyway
Was going to post the same... Trust me, I own 10m coins... I won't prove it because if I did then you would prove that you didn't trust me and I'm protecting you from having to prove anything by not proving anything...
Tranz isn't gone and he's been working on his favorite first... and then will merge the changes over to cap... I'm not worried.
Regarding the market cap... it's higher than paycoin... why are we thinking of treating it as such?
October 28, 2017, 05:02:42 AM
So lets get this straight.
We are considering a voting system weighted by size of holding om a proposal from someone who brags about holding ~10% of current supply
That same person admits to be using a supposed exploit only he can fix to cheat the community and unfairly gain coins....
On principle you can go take a running jump.
I wouldn't trust your code anyway
We are considering a voting system weighted by size of holding om a proposal from someone who brags about holding ~10% of current supply
That same person admits to be using a supposed exploit only he can fix to cheat the community and unfairly gain coins....
On principle you can go take a running jump.
I wouldn't trust your code anyway
October 28, 2017, 03:29:36 AM
I want take code control over CAP, because Tranz abandon CAP. Before, I take most code fix to my coins from CAP.
There is a big enough userbase here and a $150,000 marketcap. That's not small change, it represents a lot of people's investments. If you want to help the coin you have to cooperate with others who have a pre-existing interest and ownership.
Caps is not worth $150,000. Market cap is meaningless. The complete order book on cryptopia only cointains orders for 5,346,228 bottlecaps worth 0.22580272 bitcoin. Thats how much caps is really worth.
I support all changes. There is really not much at stake here.
October 27, 2017, 08:39:10 PM
I want take code control over CAP, because Tranz abandon CAP. Before, I take most code fix to my coins from CAP.
There is a big enough userbase here and a $150,000 marketcap. That's not small change, it represents a lot of people's investments. If you want to help the coin you have to cooperate with others who have a pre-existing interest and ownership.
October 27, 2017, 08:22:30 PM
I want take code control over CAP, because Tranz abandon CAP. Before, I take most code fix to my coins from CAP.
There is a big enough userbase here and a $150,000 marketcap. That's not small change, it represents a lot of people's investments. If you want to help the coin you have to cooperate with others who have a pre-existing interest and ownership.
October 27, 2017, 08:20:00 PM
SCIFI coin do not need any enhancement after start. And I control not only SCIFI, also KED, GPL, QBT, BUK, soon create GPL+.
Fix CAP take only 1-3 days for coding and testing.
Fix CAP take only 1-3 days for coding and testing.
October 27, 2017, 08:09:49 PM
I want take code control over CAP, because Tranz abandon CAP. Before, I take most code fix to my coins from CAP.
I dont know that I'd call it abandoned:
Hi everyone. Just to let you know not dead, still here. Over the next few months I plan to do some with on HBN. If (and this is a big if) I am able to I will try also push some of this over to CAP. But if others want to take my commits and bring them over that would be a good thing.
I'll post here as they happen see if anyone else want to help, or if it is just talk. My guess is 2018 - 2019 for the final set of commits, with some early ones in 2017.
I'll post here as they happen see if anyone else want to help, or if it is just talk. My guess is 2018 - 2019 for the final set of commits, with some early ones in 2017.
I'll edit the 'vote' post to include that a vote NO is a vote that you focus your efforts on SCIFI coin instead of trying to take over Bottlecaps.
October 27, 2017, 07:50:25 PM
I want take code control over CAP, because Tranz abandon CAP. Before, I take most code fix to my coins from CAP.
October 27, 2017, 07:36:53 PM
If all not want my initial proposal , I can do fork without change PoS rate and max reward.
Only fix retarget algo, remove PoW and change max time drift from 15 to 5 min.
All other fixes not need fork: protect from time-shift nodes and reducing CPU, memory usage.
Only fix retarget algo, remove PoW and change max time drift from 15 to 5 min.
All other fixes not need fork: protect from time-shift nodes and reducing CPU, memory usage.
Maybe if the vote happens to be NO you can work with Tranz on some memory usage fixes he's already implemented in HBN that could be applied to CAPs with your help.
October 27, 2017, 07:13:27 PM
If all not want my initial proposal , I can do fork without change PoS rate and max reward.
Only fix retarget algo, remove PoW and change max time drift from 15 to 5 min.
All other fixes not need fork: protect from time-shift nodes and reducing CPU, memory usage.
Only fix retarget algo, remove PoW and change max time drift from 15 to 5 min.
All other fixes not need fork: protect from time-shift nodes and reducing CPU, memory usage.
October 27, 2017, 06:36:33 PM
When you vote yes or no please let us know how much CAP you have.
I have 10M.
I have 10M.
Rather than a declaration of ownership by those participating and/or lurking why not use two of the existing claimed addresses:
One of Yours = Yes, FORK IT!
Ej36HXyQjGPyzhw7semZt562nbpUGZmgfP
http://www.presstab.pw/phpexplorer/CAP/address.php?address=Ej36HXyQjGPyzhw7semZt562nbpUGZmgfP
Sofaking = No, UnFORKed with
F2JcokPB94AQmMV11fciePo7MSvrsjuFQV
http://www.presstab.pw/phpexplorer/CAP/address.php?address=F2JcokPB94AQmMV11fciePo7MSvrsjuFQV
Send at ONE Bottlecap from an address to vote with the full weight of that address' content (all votes final, CAPs being kept, yadda, yadda...).
So far you're up quite a few YES votes to my NO vote. Voters can post the transaction ID in thread if they'd like. My thinking is that some impromptu 'governance' does not require much beyond that.
Commence governance'ing
***edited to include - 'No' allowing Vampirus to continue working on SCIFI coin unfettered by ongoing notions of taking over Bottlecaps. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-united-scifi-coin-scifi-powpos-2092094
October 27, 2017, 05:49:38 PM
You d be better off explaining to the community how to fix it before everyone else with any holding decides its a broken scam and leaves
October 27, 2017, 04:08:06 PM
I just want give users equal opportunity for stacking. And if most not agree, I continue use PoS percentage cheating, because only me know how increase PoS rate to 200% when necessary. 
You d be better off explaining to the community how to fix it before everyone else with any holding decides its a broken scam and leaves Seeing as there is only 0.2 btc on the buy book at cryptopia I'd think twice about spreading FUD and get with community instead of
being an ass hat and showing off.
Anyway we all game the percentages, its part of POS hodling
October 27, 2017, 03:56:11 PM
The wallet needs to be recompiled at least so it doesn't use so much resources. It's one of the most resource-hungry wallets in use. Can you change it to be less resource hungry?
October 27, 2017, 03:11:45 PM
I vote No to any of the proposed changes.
The core functionality of CAPs is fine as it is. The current 200% max; variable with difficulty along with the maximum stake reward/block functions just fine.
The only complaints against Bottlecaps with any type of regularity are that the wallet uses too much resources. Any development should focus on this type of improvement not on changing the fundamentals.
Also, even though the current split/combine thresholds were set by Tranz at the low value levels for a valid reason no one typically leaves there blocks at these sizes and consequently spend a lot of time in coin control managing their block sizes (ie most people manually make their blocks in the 5000-6000 range). I think for user 'quality of life' having these values be able to be set at whatever a user wants easily would be a nice change. I changed these for myself in the source code and as a result just leave my wallet running 24/7/365 never having to even bother with the hassle/waste of time of managing blocks in coin control...it's great.
The core functionality of CAPs is fine as it is. The current 200% max; variable with difficulty along with the maximum stake reward/block functions just fine.
The only complaints against Bottlecaps with any type of regularity are that the wallet uses too much resources. Any development should focus on this type of improvement not on changing the fundamentals.
Also, even though the current split/combine thresholds were set by Tranz at the low value levels for a valid reason no one typically leaves there blocks at these sizes and consequently spend a lot of time in coin control managing their block sizes (ie most people manually make their blocks in the 5000-6000 range). I think for user 'quality of life' having these values be able to be set at whatever a user wants easily would be a nice change. I changed these for myself in the source code and as a result just leave my wallet running 24/7/365 never having to even bother with the hassle/waste of time of managing blocks in coin control...it's great.
I'd agree with that
Coin control split-block .
goodness even a sum of value when you filter the transactions list.
First things first before we screw with things that aint broke.
-- Holding .. more than enough that it feels obnoxious to shout about.
October 27, 2017, 02:57:40 PM
When you vote yes or no please let us know how much CAP you have.
I have 10M.
I have 10M.
October 27, 2017, 01:54:44 PM
I vote No to any of the proposed changes.
The core functionality of CAPs is fine as it is. The current 200% max; variable with difficulty along with the maximum stake reward/block functions just fine.
The only complaints against Bottlecaps with any type of regularity are that the wallet uses too much resources. Any development should focus on this type of improvement not on changing the fundamentals.
Also, even though the current split/combine thresholds were set by Tranz at the low value levels for a valid reason no one typically leaves there blocks at these sizes and consequently spend a lot of time in coin control managing their block sizes (ie most people manually make their blocks in the 5000-6000 range). I think for user 'quality of life' having these values be able to be set at whatever a user wants easily would be a nice change. I changed these for myself in the source code and as a result just leave my wallet running 24/7/365 never having to even bother with the hassle/waste of time of managing blocks in coin control...it's great.
The core functionality of CAPs is fine as it is. The current 200% max; variable with difficulty along with the maximum stake reward/block functions just fine.
The only complaints against Bottlecaps with any type of regularity are that the wallet uses too much resources. Any development should focus on this type of improvement not on changing the fundamentals.
Also, even though the current split/combine thresholds were set by Tranz at the low value levels for a valid reason no one typically leaves there blocks at these sizes and consequently spend a lot of time in coin control managing their block sizes (ie most people manually make their blocks in the 5000-6000 range). I think for user 'quality of life' having these values be able to be set at whatever a user wants easily would be a nice change. I changed these for myself in the source code and as a result just leave my wallet running 24/7/365 never having to even bother with the hassle/waste of time of managing blocks in coin control...it's great.
October 27, 2017, 10:41:05 AM
CAP need hardfork.
1. Reduce max PoS reward from 1000 to 500 to reduce inflation.
2. Fix PoS rate to 200% instead of floating rate as now 1-200%
3. Change retarget rules to prevent percentage cheating.
4. Remove PoW mining.
If all agree, I can take over code development.
1. Reduce max PoS reward from 1000 to 500 to reduce inflation.
2. Fix PoS rate to 200% instead of floating rate as now 1-200%
3. Change retarget rules to prevent percentage cheating.
4. Remove PoW mining.
If all agree, I can take over code development.
1. You want to reduce inflation.
2. You want to increase inflation.
Can you explain why this is a better solution?
3. What is percentage cheating?
4. Is there enough people POS mining for this to be sustainable with the minimum 14 days coin age?
Can you please share a little more details about what you would like to do?
Summary 1 and 2 keep inflation as now.
Fixed PoS rate reduce CPU load, and user not need wait low difficulty to start mining.
3. One of node 62.210.122.161 have wrong time (-1 hour ) and affect to other wallets (you can't PoS minting or difficulty go down)
Also someone can increase PoS rate to 200% get stake and then reduce to 100-130% for others.
October 27, 2017, 01:56:45 AM
CAP need hardfork.
1. Reduce max PoS reward from 1000 to 500 to reduce inflation.
2. Fix PoS rate to 200% instead of floating rate as now 1-200%
3. Change retarget rules to prevent percentage cheating.
4. Remove PoW mining.
If all agree, I can take over code development.
1. Reduce max PoS reward from 1000 to 500 to reduce inflation.
2. Fix PoS rate to 200% instead of floating rate as now 1-200%
3. Change retarget rules to prevent percentage cheating.
4. Remove PoW mining.
If all agree, I can take over code development.
1. You want to reduce inflation.
2. You want to increase inflation.
Can you explain why this is a better solution?
3. What is percentage cheating?
4. Is there enough people POS mining for this to be sustainable with the minimum 14 days coin age?
Can you please share a little more details about what you would like to do?
Jump to: