Topic: Incorrect Bitcore(BTX) Circulating Supply on CMC - page 4. (Read 4170 times)
Option 2.
Option 4 , proposal
Define a maximum date to claim the btx to the btc holders and close that topic, The remaining coins are included in the airdrop, can this be done?
That would require a hard fork so I don't think it is the preferable option.Define a maximum date to claim the btx to the btc holders and close that topic, The remaining coins are included in the airdrop, can this be done?
This would be absolute madness. You can't take coins out of the blockchain on an explicit date or a decision of even the devs. Something like that would destroy every trust into the currency.
Well to be fair Ethereum did something very similar with the DAO hard fork and they are still one of the most trusted coins out there. That being said, it is still not preferable.
This whole discussion proves once again how broken a metric the market cap really is.
Same as CPU speed is solely measured in GHz and the number of megapixels is the only thing that influences picture quality of cameras.
Makes you wonder how many other promising projects are misrepresented on CMC?
edit: Must be option 1, of course. Anything else is nonsense.
edit2: Have you contacted coincap.io or coingecko.com as well? Or do those blindly rely on CMC data? (oh, and send coincap.io a BTX logo while you are at it)
Same as CPU speed is solely measured in GHz and the number of megapixels is the only thing that influences picture quality of cameras.
Makes you wonder how many other promising projects are misrepresented on CMC?
edit: Must be option 1, of course. Anything else is nonsense.
edit2: Have you contacted coincap.io or coingecko.com as well? Or do those blindly rely on CMC data? (oh, and send coincap.io a BTX logo while you are at it)
Option 4 , proposal
Define a maximum date to claim the btx to the btc holders and close that topic, The remaining coins are included in the airdrop, can this be done?
That would require a hard fork so I don't think it is the preferable option.Define a maximum date to claim the btx to the btc holders and close that topic, The remaining coins are included in the airdrop, can this be done?
This would be absolute madness. You can't take coins out of the blockchain on an explicit date or a decision of even the devs. Something like that would destroy every trust into the currency.
Hi,
If we go for Option 2.
What will be our Max SUPPLY? 21million?
If we go for Option 2.
What will be our Max SUPPLY? 21million?
Max supply is always going to be 21 million.
Hi,
If we go for Option 2.
What will be our Max SUPPLY? 21million?
If we go for Option 2.
What will be our Max SUPPLY? 21million?
Option 4 , proposal
Define a maximum date to claim the btx to the btc holders and close that topic, The remaining coins are included in the airdrop, can this be done?
They can't only say, "Sorry guys, it's done. The supply is going to be frozen forever.". Are they going to at least count the future airdrops into the circulating supply? That's all very strange.
Why do they don't count the virtual fork into the circulating supply? The money is accessible for the ones having the needed private key as every other address on the blockchain. I really don't get on what grounds they're arguing to not count the virtual forked coins. What's the criterium for a coin to be count into the circulating supply. There has to be a definition from their side.
IMHO that's completely BS. By their criteria to not count the forked coins, they would have to ignore most of the "sleeping whale" accounts in other blockchains. I really just don't get it and it feels very arbitrary.
That would require a hard fork so I don't think it is the preferable option. Define a maximum date to claim the btx to the btc holders and close that topic, The remaining coins are included in the airdrop, can this be done?
Greetings Community,
As many of you know, the Bitcore team have been trying to work through the issues with CMC about our circulating supply being incorrectly displayed. I believe CMC views our "virtually forked" coins to Bitcoin holders to not be in circulation so in response our circulating supply has been arbitrarily frozen at 1,195,602 as of November 6th. Since November 6th, we have tried to establish direct contact and consequently we have been waiting for our circulating supply to be corrected. We are now creating this poll to enlist the help of the community in determining a good solution to the problem. Below is a brief description regarding each option and also the spreadsheet that documents everything from the airdrops, first claiming period, virtual fork, development fund addresses, and even the supply from mining. We stopped the calculations at block 84700 so anything that has occurred after that is not accounted for in the spreadsheet. We hope that you find this poll satisfactory and if you have any questions then please be sure to ask.
Sincerely,
Your Bitcore Team
Option 1: Circulating Supply includes the "virtually forked" coins
This option would essentially mean that all coins not currently controlled by the development team are considered in circulation. The numbers are documented below in the spreadsheet and this would mean the circulating supply would be 9,945,943.897515 as of block 84700. We think that this treatment is very fair since the coins are not in our possession and it is exactly how Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, and even additional forks have been calculated by CMC.
Option 2: Circulating Supply does not include the "virtually forked" coins but still all of other coins
This option would not consider the "virtually forked" coins to be in circulation but all other coins would still be counted in the circulating supply. The circulating supply for this option would be 1,625,941.46974566. All additional airdrops and coins mined beyond block 84700 would of course have to be added to the running total.
Option 3: Circulating Supply should be permanently frozen at 1,195,602
This option would mean that our circulating supply, despite any proven numbers, would be permanently frozen at 1,195,602.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gzHqrDDCHyfBtA4H4wl15VYHQzwwfULcJq1r4JcVnOA/edit?usp=sharing
Was there any response when, how and if they would consider the virtual forked coins as circulating supply. As there would be: never, when they are transferred from the fork address or when the fork address' amount is changed in any way?As many of you know, the Bitcore team have been trying to work through the issues with CMC about our circulating supply being incorrectly displayed. I believe CMC views our "virtually forked" coins to Bitcoin holders to not be in circulation so in response our circulating supply has been arbitrarily frozen at 1,195,602 as of November 6th. Since November 6th, we have tried to establish direct contact and consequently we have been waiting for our circulating supply to be corrected. We are now creating this poll to enlist the help of the community in determining a good solution to the problem. Below is a brief description regarding each option and also the spreadsheet that documents everything from the airdrops, first claiming period, virtual fork, development fund addresses, and even the supply from mining. We stopped the calculations at block 84700 so anything that has occurred after that is not accounted for in the spreadsheet. We hope that you find this poll satisfactory and if you have any questions then please be sure to ask.
Sincerely,
Your Bitcore Team
Option 1: Circulating Supply includes the "virtually forked" coins
This option would essentially mean that all coins not currently controlled by the development team are considered in circulation. The numbers are documented below in the spreadsheet and this would mean the circulating supply would be 9,945,943.897515 as of block 84700. We think that this treatment is very fair since the coins are not in our possession and it is exactly how Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, and even additional forks have been calculated by CMC.
Option 2: Circulating Supply does not include the "virtually forked" coins but still all of other coins
This option would not consider the "virtually forked" coins to be in circulation but all other coins would still be counted in the circulating supply. The circulating supply for this option would be 1,625,941.46974566. All additional airdrops and coins mined beyond block 84700 would of course have to be added to the running total.
Option 3: Circulating Supply should be permanently frozen at 1,195,602
This option would mean that our circulating supply, despite any proven numbers, would be permanently frozen at 1,195,602.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gzHqrDDCHyfBtA4H4wl15VYHQzwwfULcJq1r4JcVnOA/edit?usp=sharing
They can't only say, "Sorry guys, it's done. The supply is going to be frozen forever.". Are they going to at least count the future airdrops into the circulating supply? That's all very strange.
Why do they don't count the virtual fork into the circulating supply? The money is accessible for the ones having the needed private key as every other address on the blockchain. I really don't get on what grounds they're arguing to not count the virtual forked coins. What's the criterium for a coin to be count into the circulating supply. There has to be a definition from their side.
IMHO that's completely BS. By their criteria to not count the forked coins, they would have to ignore most of the "sleeping whale" accounts in other blockchains. I really just don't get it and it feels very arbitrary.
Option 1.
It is what it is: Option 1
Sooner or later a lot of that coins will appear in the market, affecting the market numbers (price, volumes...). Any other option is absurd.
I don't think we have to "obey" CMC ... Who are they ? To me they are acting this way due some hidden interests, unknown for the rest us. What we have to do is to listen the BitCore community.
At the end, if CMC doesn't want to be rational, we can choose to obey or to adapt ourselves to the new situation considering more options, including a Bitcore fork to undo transactions for unclaimed BTC coins returning them to circulation again (via more airdrops, or any other method) to satisfy these new CMC rules "made expressly for us".
I'm not in crypto to obey arbitrary decissions from third parties, so it should be a BitCore community and developers decission.
We can decide what we want, but not what CMC puts on their page. But if you wanna go toe to toe with the no.1 place to go for information about crypto currencies, I don't think that's a good idea. I don't like it too, but trying to compete with CMC about credibility is IMHO a battle you're going to loose. We need to find a compromise in a diplomatic way, at least for starters. What doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer option 1. 1 would be tje ideal solution.Sooner or later a lot of that coins will appear in the market, affecting the market numbers (price, volumes...). Any other option is absurd.
I don't think we have to "obey" CMC ... Who are they ? To me they are acting this way due some hidden interests, unknown for the rest us. What we have to do is to listen the BitCore community.
At the end, if CMC doesn't want to be rational, we can choose to obey or to adapt ourselves to the new situation considering more options, including a Bitcore fork to undo transactions for unclaimed BTC coins returning them to circulation again (via more airdrops, or any other method) to satisfy these new CMC rules "made expressly for us".
I'm not in crypto to obey arbitrary decissions from third parties, so it should be a BitCore community and developers decission.
It's not about going toe to toe, this is about correct and real information. Bitcore deserves to be listed there correctly and we must try it the hardest we can. But in the last case, I even prefer that CMC remove Bitcore from their listings than to be there with numbers that cheat new Bitcore members, coming here always asking about this issue because they don't understand the wrong CMC numbers.
With the calculation method that CMC is currently using with Bitcore, it's impossible for any coin to be listed in high positions (not even for Bitcoin !).
Something is shady at CMC regarding this. This year there were coins that appeared in their TOP 20 from nowhere with most part of the coins not distributed, and big big chunks in the hands of the creators... And now they are arguing against Bitcore real numbers ? mmmm....
The Bitcore numbers in CMC were listed correctly for some hours and then they changed them. Why ? Who was the person/group that told them to change Bitcore numbers ? Something shady happened there...
The ONE and only the ONE ^^
I think option 2 is at least minimum.
Option 1 is the best!
Option 2: Circulating Supply does not include the "virtually forked" coins but still all of other coins
This option would not consider the "virtually forked" coins to be in circulation but all other coins would still be counted in the circulating supply. The circulating supply for this option would be 1,625,941.46974566. All additional airdrops and coins mined beyond block 84700 would of course have to be added to the running total.
How does this spell out? When definitely there are evidence that the coin was 'virtually forked' which does means it exists as seen in the blockchain and accessible for claimants, then of a sudden it is not counted amongst the coin in circulation.
Option two of course, why would it be the first option? there is no sense with that at all.
Has anyone noticed that bitcore was just another pump & dump situation? just look at the price, it was less than 25$ by the beggining of the last week, and then suddenly pumped to more than $45 each one of them.
Now it is at $29 each and a lot of people invested money in there because they wanted to earn some free money from that.
Lets see how it goes, but it is a good project, only that it seems very shady to me, and that is why i will never put my funds into that coin.
Has anyone noticed that bitcore was just another pump & dump situation? just look at the price, it was less than 25$ by the beggining of the last week, and then suddenly pumped to more than $45 each one of them.
Now it is at $29 each and a lot of people invested money in there because they wanted to earn some free money from that.
Lets see how it goes, but it is a good project, only that it seems very shady to me, and that is why i will never put my funds into that coin.
Well to be fair option one is simply the way that CMC calculates every single other coin. Do you think all of Bitcoin Cash has been claimed? Do you think all of Bitcoin is truly "in circulation"? We are fine with being calculated by option 2 as long as everyone else is also calculated by option 2. We really just want fair treatment.
I instinctively chose option 2 but after reading this ^^ post. You make some valid arguments. CMC can't have double standards. How coins in circulation are calculated should be the same across board. So my final answer is option 1
Option 1. However, I have my reservations regarding CMC point of view.
Btw, why is option 3 even in there?
When in my opinion, option 2 shouldn't even qualify.
When in my opinion, option 2 shouldn't even qualify.
Option 3 is here to show all of the potential options and to be as impartial as possible.
It would help if we had more info.
What are the arguments cmc has presented, and how can we present our response and position, In the most effective and productive manner? That should be top priority on our list.
Not trying to find arguments and excuses as to why we maybe should settle for option 2.
What are the arguments cmc has presented, and how can we present our response and position, In the most effective and productive manner? That should be top priority on our list.
Not trying to find arguments and excuses as to why we maybe should settle for option 2.
Btw, why is option 3 even in there?
When in my opinion, option 2 shouldn't even qualify.
When in my opinion, option 2 shouldn't even qualify.
It is what it is: Option 1
Sooner or later a lot of that coins will appear in the market, affecting the market numbers (price, volumes...). Any other option is absurd.
I don't think we have to "obey" CMC ... Who are they ? To me they are acting this way due some hidden interests, unknown for the rest us. What we have to do is to listen the BitCore community.
At the end, if CMC doesn't want to be rational, we can choose to obey or to adapt ourselves to the new situation considering more options, including a Bitcore fork to undo transactions for unclaimed BTC coins returning them to circulation again (via more airdrops, or any other method) to satisfy these new CMC rules "made expressly for us".
I'm not in crypto to obey arbitrary decissions from third parties, so it should be a BitCore community and developers decission.
We can decide what we want, but not what CMC puts on their page. But if you wanna go toe to toe with the no.1 place to go for information about crypto currencies, I don't think that's a good idea. I don't like it too, but trying to compete with CMC about credibility is IMHO a battle you're going to loose. We need to find a compromise in a diplomatic way, at least for starters. What doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer option 1. 1 would be tje ideal solution.Sooner or later a lot of that coins will appear in the market, affecting the market numbers (price, volumes...). Any other option is absurd.
I don't think we have to "obey" CMC ... Who are they ? To me they are acting this way due some hidden interests, unknown for the rest us. What we have to do is to listen the BitCore community.
At the end, if CMC doesn't want to be rational, we can choose to obey or to adapt ourselves to the new situation considering more options, including a Bitcore fork to undo transactions for unclaimed BTC coins returning them to circulation again (via more airdrops, or any other method) to satisfy these new CMC rules "made expressly for us".
I'm not in crypto to obey arbitrary decissions from third parties, so it should be a BitCore community and developers decission.
What about the credibility of the coin? Having to explain those 8 million, every time someone asks. And never having an unquestionable circulating supply.
Has to be option one. Diplomatic is the only way, but option one is the only reasonable option.
How is this really any different than still counting Satoshi's coins or the millions of lost Bitcoin as being "in circulation"?
This is exactly why it's so ridiculous, why is this even a discussion.
Exactly
Option no 1 is fair play.
Jump to: