Nice price action this morning
The delayed decision on the rewards is making it easy to collect from weak ✋ 🤚
Topic: [NLG] The even greater Gulden thread! - page 46. (Read 47258 times)
The delayed decision on the rewards is making it easy to collect from weak ✋ 🤚
Nice price action this morning
I sold this coin after the 1st dev reward not because of the dev reward but because Rijk increased the block reward and I see the block reward is 160 today.
I left when it was raised to 120. They should of kept witness at 20 and dropped mining to 20 and 40 dev reward.
By raising the block reward the price dropped and they had to do another reward increase. It was common sense the price was going to crash and never rise.
It looks like common sense is returning to this project.
I left when it was raised to 120. They should of kept witness at 20 and dropped mining to 20 and 40 dev reward.
By raising the block reward the price dropped and they had to do another reward increase. It was common sense the price was going to crash and never rise.
It looks like common sense is returning to this project.
I don't think at the time they thought about the consequences of raising the rewards as they were trying to keep development going which was more important.
With the beta chain Novo the max supply and reward is changed and it had a positive outlook on the price. Novo was trading flat and slowly down until the announcement. The price went up 2400% and has settled 50% lower but 1200% higher before the change. When GAB saw the result, soon after they started a discussion with the community to do the same with Gulden.
I sold this coin after the 1st dev reward not because of the dev reward but because Rijk increased the block reward and I see the block reward is 160 today.
I left when it was raised to 120. They should of kept witness at 20 and dropped mining to 20 and 40 dev reward.
By raising the block reward the price dropped and they had to do another reward increase. It was common sense the price was going to crash and never rise.
It looks like common sense is returning to this project.
I left when it was raised to 120. They should of kept witness at 20 and dropped mining to 20 and 40 dev reward.
By raising the block reward the price dropped and they had to do another reward increase. It was common sense the price was going to crash and never rise.
It looks like common sense is returning to this project.
They can do what they want, but I doubt you will get back in at 40sat and if it does I will buy a million with you.
Its going to 40sats bruh, 6 months of 160 reward.
The change is coming in August which is 3.5 months away, but we don't know what change. The devs might have to reduce funding from 70 to 60 and give miners 30 like witnessing for security reasons, if the security is good then more funding for development, marketing and exchanges.
They can do what they want, but I doubt you will get back in at 40sat and if it does I will buy a million with you.
Its going to 40sats bruh, 6 months of 160 reward.
You should thank Rijk for delaying the reward change because it's your only hope of entering at those prices and if bitcoin goes up.
They can do what they want, but I doubt you will get back in at 40sat and if it does I will buy a million with you.
Its going to 40sats bruh, 6 months of 160 reward.
I would like a drop to 40 sat, ready to buy the dips tbh. Great name, Great development, Great Roadmap, Great changes to max supply and reward (only now) and emotional connection to a lot of people in the Netherlands.
Interesting discussions after I was here last time. Some Bitcointalk slang too, of course, but that's part of the game.
I just wanted to clarify what exactly the plan is regarding the supply and reward adjustment.
As you can see on Github, the supply adjustment is already in the code, so only the rewards / halving needs to be added. We are following the advisory board and our intention is to adopt this adjustment as well. However, we need to find out what the possible consequences of this drastic change are. That has nothing to do with our opinion. Our job is to do what the majority of users (community) want.
What we need to find out is, above all, the Witness/Mining ratio. In the design of Witness, no account was taken of a situation where Witness gets more than Miner. Economically that may be very good, but in terms of security and stability it should be too. We are going to look into that and if it turns out that there are significant risks then we will feed that back to the Advisory Board. If there are no significant risks, we will, of course, implement the change. This has nothing to do with the dev reward, which can be adjusted.
At the moment we are in the middle of the Witness Sync development, which will mean a huge improvement in terms of synchronisation. We hope to be able to test it this month and start working on the reward topic immediately after Witness Sync.
This research will not take months and the implementation in the code is not very complex. The change is planned for August.
At Novo, such changes have already been made and will come into effect around the summer. The reason why the change was made so easily there is mainly because Novo is still very small. So if something still needs to be changed, it can be done easily. We often test something with Novo first, and then apply it to Gulden. That is the advantage of being able to efficiently maintain two projects.
I just wanted to clarify what exactly the plan is regarding the supply and reward adjustment.
As you can see on Github, the supply adjustment is already in the code, so only the rewards / halving needs to be added. We are following the advisory board and our intention is to adopt this adjustment as well. However, we need to find out what the possible consequences of this drastic change are. That has nothing to do with our opinion. Our job is to do what the majority of users (community) want.
What we need to find out is, above all, the Witness/Mining ratio. In the design of Witness, no account was taken of a situation where Witness gets more than Miner. Economically that may be very good, but in terms of security and stability it should be too. We are going to look into that and if it turns out that there are significant risks then we will feed that back to the Advisory Board. If there are no significant risks, we will, of course, implement the change. This has nothing to do with the dev reward, which can be adjusted.
At the moment we are in the middle of the Witness Sync development, which will mean a huge improvement in terms of synchronisation. We hope to be able to test it this month and start working on the reward topic immediately after Witness Sync.
This research will not take months and the implementation in the code is not very complex. The change is planned for August.
At Novo, such changes have already been made and will come into effect around the summer. The reason why the change was made so easily there is mainly because Novo is still very small. So if something still needs to be changed, it can be done easily. We often test something with Novo first, and then apply it to Gulden. That is the advantage of being able to efficiently maintain two projects.
These changes have given me lots of motivation to promote Gulden.
Desillusional people like Frusty the Downer think they have any influence is making me giggle.
ping ping ping ping ping ping and Aat opening those wallets. 38sats to 40 and you have me back in your corner!
They can do what they want, but I doubt you will get back in at 40sat and if it does I will buy a million with you.
Interesting discussions after I was here last time. Some Bitcointalk slang too, of course, but that's part of the game.
I just wanted to clarify what exactly the plan is regarding the supply and reward adjustment.
As you can see on Github, the supply adjustment is already in the code, so only the rewards / halving needs to be added. We are following the advisory board and our intention is to adopt this adjustment as well. However, we need to find out what the possible consequences of this drastic change are. That has nothing to do with our opinion. Our job is to do what the majority of users (community) want.
What we need to find out is, above all, the Witness/Mining ratio. In the design of Witness, no account was taken of a situation where Witness gets more than Miner. Economically that may be very good, but in terms of security and stability it should be too. We are going to look into that and if it turns out that there are significant risks then we will feed that back to the Advisory Board. If there are no significant risks, we will, of course, implement the change. This has nothing to do with the dev reward, which can be adjusted.
At the moment we are in the middle of the Witness Sync development, which will mean a huge improvement in terms of synchronisation. We hope to be able to test it this month and start working on the reward topic immediately after Witness Sync.
This research will not take months and the implementation in the code is not very complex. The change is planned for August.
At Novo, such changes have already been made and will come into effect around the summer. The reason why the change was made so easily there is mainly because Novo is still very small. So if something still needs to be changed, it can be done easily. We often test something with Novo first, and then apply it to Gulden. That is the advantage of being able to efficiently maintain two projects.
I just wanted to clarify what exactly the plan is regarding the supply and reward adjustment.
As you can see on Github, the supply adjustment is already in the code, so only the rewards / halving needs to be added. We are following the advisory board and our intention is to adopt this adjustment as well. However, we need to find out what the possible consequences of this drastic change are. That has nothing to do with our opinion. Our job is to do what the majority of users (community) want.
What we need to find out is, above all, the Witness/Mining ratio. In the design of Witness, no account was taken of a situation where Witness gets more than Miner. Economically that may be very good, but in terms of security and stability it should be too. We are going to look into that and if it turns out that there are significant risks then we will feed that back to the Advisory Board. If there are no significant risks, we will, of course, implement the change. This has nothing to do with the dev reward, which can be adjusted.
At the moment we are in the middle of the Witness Sync development, which will mean a huge improvement in terms of synchronisation. We hope to be able to test it this month and start working on the reward topic immediately after Witness Sync.
This research will not take months and the implementation in the code is not very complex. The change is planned for August.
At Novo, such changes have already been made and will come into effect around the summer. The reason why the change was made so easily there is mainly because Novo is still very small. So if something still needs to be changed, it can be done easily. We often test something with Novo first, and then apply it to Gulden. That is the advantage of being able to efficiently maintain two projects.
I suspected Novo was created as a beta test for Gulden, if its not delaying development on Gulden most will be happy with making sure Gulden is safe. Thanks for all the work you and your team do Rijk.
Desillusional people like Frusty the Downer think they have any influence is making me giggle.
Witness sync is finished in 4 years. I have insider info.
Frusty the clown. Fuddy the clown. Nobody buys this bs.
I noticed a dump on the market after my post. Traders are selling my BS.
It was an old gulden account on bittrex not traders. Better the dump today then a dump at higher prices.
Witness sync is finished in 4 years. I have insider info.
Frusty the clown. Fuddy the clown. Nobody buys this bs.
I noticed a dump on the market after my post. Traders are selling my BS.
Witness sync is finished in 4 years. I have insider info.
Frusty the clown. Fuddy the clown. Nobody buys this bs.
A few older accounts selling. After a 3 year dead market it's expected. When the reward adjustments are in we can make them regret they sold. Hold tight!
.
Technical analysis youtube blog Doopie just calculated that if 114 sat is reached, price will propell to over 209 sat
Not possible until we have certainty from the developers on the future reward programme, for all we know they will take 4 years to make the change and will say sorry for you but we have to increase the max supply. Then we have been conned by the devs to get more funding out, you have to think like a scammer to see what the developers could be up too. It is strange they are dragging their heels on this subject.
Witness sync is finished in 4 years. I have insider info.
Interesting discussions after I was here last time. Some Bitcointalk slang too, of course, but that's part of the game.
I just wanted to clarify what exactly the plan is regarding the supply and reward adjustment.
As you can see on Github, the supply adjustment is already in the code, so only the rewards / halving needs to be added. We are following the advisory board and our intention is to adopt this adjustment as well. However, we need to find out what the possible consequences of this drastic change are. That has nothing to do with our opinion. Our job is to do what the majority of users (community) want.
What we need to find out is, above all, the Witness/Mining ratio. In the design of Witness, no account was taken of a situation where Witness gets more than Miner. Economically that may be very good, but in terms of security and stability it should be too. We are going to look into that and if it turns out that there are significant risks then we will feed that back to the Advisory Board. If there are no significant risks, we will, of course, implement the change. This has nothing to do with the dev reward, which can be adjusted.
At the moment we are in the middle of the Witness Sync development, which will mean a huge improvement in terms of synchronisation. We hope to be able to test it this month and start working on the reward topic immediately after Witness Sync.
This research will not take months and the implementation in the code is not very complex. The change is planned for August.
At Novo, such changes have already been made and will come into effect around the summer. The reason why the change was made so easily there is mainly because Novo is still very small. So if something still needs to be changed, it can be done easily. We often test something with Novo first, and then apply it to Gulden. That is the advantage of being able to efficiently maintain two projects.
I just wanted to clarify what exactly the plan is regarding the supply and reward adjustment.
As you can see on Github, the supply adjustment is already in the code, so only the rewards / halving needs to be added. We are following the advisory board and our intention is to adopt this adjustment as well. However, we need to find out what the possible consequences of this drastic change are. That has nothing to do with our opinion. Our job is to do what the majority of users (community) want.
What we need to find out is, above all, the Witness/Mining ratio. In the design of Witness, no account was taken of a situation where Witness gets more than Miner. Economically that may be very good, but in terms of security and stability it should be too. We are going to look into that and if it turns out that there are significant risks then we will feed that back to the Advisory Board. If there are no significant risks, we will, of course, implement the change. This has nothing to do with the dev reward, which can be adjusted.
At the moment we are in the middle of the Witness Sync development, which will mean a huge improvement in terms of synchronisation. We hope to be able to test it this month and start working on the reward topic immediately after Witness Sync.
This research will not take months and the implementation in the code is not very complex. The change is planned for August.
At Novo, such changes have already been made and will come into effect around the summer. The reason why the change was made so easily there is mainly because Novo is still very small. So if something still needs to be changed, it can be done easily. We often test something with Novo first, and then apply it to Gulden. That is the advantage of being able to efficiently maintain two projects.
Thanks for your clarification on this subject.
Lets give the weak hands time to sell before the next move up.
Interesting discussions after I was here last time. Some Bitcointalk slang too, of course, but that's part of the game.
I just wanted to clarify what exactly the plan is regarding the supply and reward adjustment.
As you can see on Github, the supply adjustment is already in the code, so only the rewards / halving needs to be added. We are following the advisory board and our intention is to adopt this adjustment as well. However, we need to find out what the possible consequences of this drastic change are. That has nothing to do with our opinion. Our job is to do what the majority of users (community) want.
What we need to find out is, above all, the Witness/Mining ratio. In the design of Witness, no account was taken of a situation where Witness gets more than Miner. Economically that may be very good, but in terms of security and stability it should be too. We are going to look into that and if it turns out that there are significant risks then we will feed that back to the Advisory Board. If there are no significant risks, we will, of course, implement the change. This has nothing to do with the dev reward, which can be adjusted.
At the moment we are in the middle of the Witness Sync development, which will mean a huge improvement in terms of synchronisation. We hope to be able to test it this month and start working on the reward topic immediately after Witness Sync.
This research will not take months and the implementation in the code is not very complex. The change is planned for August.
At Novo, such changes have already been made and will come into effect around the summer. The reason why the change was made so easily there is mainly because Novo is still very small. So if something still needs to be changed, it can be done easily. We often test something with Novo first, and then apply it to Gulden. That is the advantage of being able to efficiently maintain two projects.
I just wanted to clarify what exactly the plan is regarding the supply and reward adjustment.
As you can see on Github, the supply adjustment is already in the code, so only the rewards / halving needs to be added. We are following the advisory board and our intention is to adopt this adjustment as well. However, we need to find out what the possible consequences of this drastic change are. That has nothing to do with our opinion. Our job is to do what the majority of users (community) want.
What we need to find out is, above all, the Witness/Mining ratio. In the design of Witness, no account was taken of a situation where Witness gets more than Miner. Economically that may be very good, but in terms of security and stability it should be too. We are going to look into that and if it turns out that there are significant risks then we will feed that back to the Advisory Board. If there are no significant risks, we will, of course, implement the change. This has nothing to do with the dev reward, which can be adjusted.
At the moment we are in the middle of the Witness Sync development, which will mean a huge improvement in terms of synchronisation. We hope to be able to test it this month and start working on the reward topic immediately after Witness Sync.
This research will not take months and the implementation in the code is not very complex. The change is planned for August.
At Novo, such changes have already been made and will come into effect around the summer. The reason why the change was made so easily there is mainly because Novo is still very small. So if something still needs to be changed, it can be done easily. We often test something with Novo first, and then apply it to Gulden. That is the advantage of being able to efficiently maintain two projects.
Technical analysis youtube blog Doopie just calculated that if 114 sat is reached, price will propell to over 209 sat
Not possible until we have certainty from the developers on the future reward programme, for all we know they will take 4 years to make the change and will say sorry for you but we have to increase the max supply. Then we have been conned by the devs to get more funding out, you have to think like a scammer to see what the developers could be up too. It is strange they are dragging their heels on this subject.
Jump to: