Topic: [SDC] ShadowCash | Welcome to the UMBRA - page 333. (Read 1289636 times)
I just see the OP, very nice design, I thing I will buy some shadow...
Solid points. While the 2 week pow cannot be changed, perhaps the low price , to some extent, mitigates some of that. If the price to mine SDC was roughly around the price SDC was at for the past 3 months or so, would that equate to an equal distribution? If it were to cost me the same mining versus buying on the open market, can we consider that a wash? This is just theoretical, I'm unsure of mining costs vs. SDC price, but it does seem to be very low. At any rate, you raise some valid questions. Hope more people can chime in.
I believe this is the case, SDC price has been extremely stable and infact holding at its historic lows for weeks/months. I think this completely negates the 'fair' distribution arguments. Worst case scenario you are buying in at 2-3x the price most that miners paid in rental/time etc. And you didn't have to take the risk they did on a crap-shot new coin. This coin is now mature, devs proven and has been growing since inception. Anyone has been able to walk into this coin for 1/50th to 1/90th the price of DRK for the last six months. I think we've had one of the fairst distros in crypto history considering... The only thing you can't do is force distribution faster than it wants to go.
Very well said and very much agreed.
Why are we talking about distribution like it matters?
Darkcoin mined half of its existing coins in the first 3 days. Look at it now.
Darkcoin mined half of its existing coins in the first 3 days. Look at it now.
Solid points. While the 2 week pow cannot be changed, perhaps the low price , to some extent, mitigates some of that. If the price to mine SDC was roughly around the price SDC was at for the past 3 months or so, would that equate to an equal distribution? If it were to cost me the same mining versus buying on the open market, can we consider that a wash? This is just theoretical, I'm unsure of mining costs vs. SDC price, but it does seem to be very low. At any rate, you raise some valid questions. Hope more people can chime in.
I believe this is the case, SDC price has been extremely stable and infact holding at its historic lows for weeks/months. I think this completely negates the 'fair' distribution arguments. Worst case scenario you are buying in at 2-3x the price most that miners paid in rental/time etc. And you didn't have to take the risk they did on a crap-shot new coin. This coin is now mature, devs proven and has been growing since inception. Anyone has been able to walk into this coin for 1/50th to 1/90th the price of DRK for the last six months. I think we've had one of the fairst distros in crypto history considering... The only thing you can't do is force distribution faster than it wants to go.
But really im mostly here because im a huge fan of proof of stake and a huge fan of cryptonote and a huge fan of the idea of using POW to distribute stake. So this coin has everything i would ever ever want.
^Love it!
Quote
It should clearly be at least a year long process, probably more. If fairness and decentralized distribution is the goal.
Why a year? Seems arbitrary. Anyway with mining farms/bots etc I personally don't see a prolonged PoW phase doing much for distribution. Why not just get to the good stuff (PoS) sooner rather than later?
btw i entered in December so missed the mining phase by a lot. Wouldn't have made much difference to me anyway - I find GPU mining stressful.
Sure. So let me say first, it is kinda arbitrary, that's a legitimate criticism of my argument.
So its all about that trade off. The more the stake is distributed the more secure the platform. But proof of stake is infact better than poof of work. Thats the reason for switching to it. So if you are running proof of stake too long than you are going too long without switching to the system thats better, the opportunity cost associated with not switching to POW begins to outweigh the benefits of fairer distribution. It would make something of a u shaped curve, the first day is the most benefitical, than the second one is less benefitial but still benefitial, until the day comes when the costs begin to outweigh the benefits and the curve benins to slope back up. The point where that curve is perfectly flat is the perfect point to switch. It would be difficult to determine where this but you could create a model of sorts that would go some way towards giving an idea of the best trade off.
I cant really say what the best trade off would be, but i am pretty confident that it wouldn't be on either of the extreme ends, it wouldn't be 2 weeks and it wouldn't be 100 years.
Sort of the whole point is that POW proves that the devs arnt controlling some ridiculous percentage of the currency supply. Alteast its some reasonable evidence towards that fact. They cant just issue a bunch of currency and then "prove" that they sold it on the market because who knows who is on the other side of the trade. And something like what nxt did, who knows how many of those initial donations were made by the same entity. Who knows how many of them were made by someone sending bitcoin back to himeself. The pow is a solution to this problem, but the extent to which it is a solution is dependent upon there being opportunity for lots of other people besides the devs to get involved.
Really i dont mind a modest premine. I think it gives good incentives. If the devs are holding 5% of the currency supply than i see this as fair and good for the project since they have incentives to make their stake more valuable. But im forced to wonder if, as a result of such a short mining period, if the devs are holding much more than 5%. It worries me, and i think a lot of other people as well.
I actually think, that in typical 'good dev' fashion that SDC dev's don't have that man coins.
man coins? some coins have gender?
Really i dont mind a modest premine. I think it gives good incentives. If the devs are holding 5% of the currency supply than i see this as fair and good for the project since they have incentives to make their stake more valuable. But im forced to wonder if, as a result of such a short mining period, if the devs are holding much more than 5%. It worries me, and i think a lot of other people as well.
To clear the air: There was no premine here and in fact this was launched twice to make it even more super fair. And this crypto was written from scratch. *edit* removed snarky shit
I was here on day two of mining, I consider myself one of only a handful of miners that are still here. The vast majority of large miners all sold ages ago for a quick profit. Being well connected and heavily involved from a hobbyist/supporter stand point I think that less than 10% of the total coins are still in the hands of the original miners including me.
The coin was launched twice and the PoW was cut short by a fair bit because some insanely powerful dark-hashrate came online on the network. It was the first time I had seen the secret proprietary asics in action. This dark hashrate I called the 'mad hasher' had 2+ times the total nethash of all other miners combined including the multipools! When this mad hasher showed up they started getting at times 60-70% of all blocks. There was a great emergency as the mad hasher would have taken nearly half the total supply. The devs quickly made the decision to cut the POW phase short to prevent the mad hasher from having to much supply. I thought it was the best way to protect the couple hundred or so actual miners who had been working hard on the coin from the start. I think it was the best option and greatly protected the distribution actually.
Me and several people combed the blockchain and eventually think we located the address used by the mad hasher, They sold the last on the second rise a couple weeks after PoW was over.
I actually think, that in typical 'good dev' fashion that SDC dev's don't have that man coins. I would actually prefer they did! Several other coins I have been heavily involved with had similar situations. Hell, Bushido of Vertcoin didn't even Mine his own coin! Several miners including myself took up a donation for him to get him a slice so if his coin took off he could at least buy a Honda civic or something haha.
I've been here since the near the beginning so I've seen how it has gone down. And that is why I am still here. The dev's (ryno, techno) specifically don't really seem to care about the markets, or PR or any of this junk I swim in. They just code.... This is why I think they don't have many SDC, Extremely easy tweaks and a few extra announcements all along this path could have us sitting on a much higher market cap. Instead... they just code....
Great coin with solid devs. you can imagine why they don't want to come out and be too public due to the nature and power and impact this project will have on the world.
But really im mostly here because im a huge fan of proof of stake and a huge fan of cryptonote and a huge fan of the idea of using POW to distribute stake. So this coin has everything i would ever ever want.
^Love it!
Quote
It should clearly be at least a year long process, probably more. If fairness and decentralized distribution is the goal.
Why a year? Seems arbitrary. Anyway with mining farms/bots etc I personally don't see a prolonged PoW phase doing much for distribution. Why not just get to the good stuff (PoS) sooner rather than later?
btw i entered in December so missed the mining phase by a lot. Wouldn't have made much difference to me anyway - I find GPU mining stressful.
Sure. So let me say first, it is kinda arbitrary, that's a legitimate criticism of my argument.
So its all about that trade off. The more the stake is distributed the more secure the platform. But proof of stake is infact better than poof of work. Thats the reason for switching to it. So if you are running proof of stake too long than you are going too long without switching to the system thats better, the opportunity cost associated with not switching to POW begins to outweigh the benefits of fairer distribution. It would make something of a u shaped curve, the first day is the most benefitical, than the second one is less benefitial but still benefitial, until the day comes when the costs begin to outweigh the benefits and the curve benins to slope back up. The point where that curve is perfectly flat is the perfect point to switch. It would be difficult to determine where this but you could create a model of sorts that would go some way towards giving an idea of the best trade off.
I cant really say what the best trade off would be, but i am pretty confident that it wouldn't be on either of the extreme ends, it wouldn't be 2 weeks and it wouldn't be 100 years.
Sort of the whole point is that POW proves that the devs arnt controlling some ridiculous percentage of the currency supply. Alteast its some reasonable evidence towards that fact. They cant just issue a bunch of currency and then "prove" that they sold it on the market because who knows who is on the other side of the trade. And something like what nxt did, who knows how many of those initial donations were made by the same entity. Who knows how many of them were made by someone sending bitcoin back to himeself. The pow is a solution to this problem, but the extent to which it is a solution is dependent upon there being opportunity for lots of other people besides the devs to get involved.
Really i dont mind a modest premine. I think it gives good incentives. If the devs are holding 5% of the currency supply than i see this as fair and good for the project since they have incentives to make their stake more valuable. But im forced to wonder if, as a result of such a short mining period, if the devs are holding much more than 5%. It worries me, and i think a lot of other people as well.
*edit* removed snarky shit
But really im mostly here because im a huge fan of proof of stake and a huge fan of cryptonote and a huge fan of the idea of using POW to distribute stake. So this coin has everything i would ever ever want.
^Love it!
Quote
It should clearly be at least a year long process, probably more. If fairness and decentralized distribution is the goal.
Why a year? Seems arbitrary. Anyway with mining farms/bots etc I personally don't see a prolonged PoW phase doing much for distribution. Why not just get to the good stuff (PoS) sooner rather than later?
btw i entered in December so missed the mining phase by a lot. Wouldn't have made much difference to me anyway - I find GPU mining stressful.
Sure. So let me say first, it is kinda arbitrary, that's a legitimate criticism of my argument.
So its all about that trade off. The more the stake is distributed the more secure the platform. But proof of stake is infact better than poof of work. Thats the reason for switching to it. So if you are running proof of stake too long than you are going too long without switching to the system thats better, the opportunity cost associated with not switching to POW begins to outweigh the benefits of fairer distribution. It would make something of a u shaped curve, the first day is the most benefitical, than the second one is less benefitial but still benefitial, until the day comes when the costs begin to outweigh the benefits and the curve benins to slope back up. The point where that curve is perfectly flat is the perfect point to switch. It would be difficult to determine where this but you could create a model of sorts that would go some way towards giving an idea of the best trade off.
I cant really say what the best trade off would be, but i am pretty confident that it wouldn't be on either of the extreme ends, it wouldn't be 2 weeks and it wouldn't be 100 years.
Sort of the whole point is that POW proves that the devs arnt controlling some ridiculous percentage of the currency supply. Alteast its some reasonable evidence towards that fact. They cant just issue a bunch of currency and then "prove" that they sold it on the market because who knows who is on the other side of the trade. And something like what nxt did, who knows how many of those initial donations were made by the same entity. Who knows how many of them were made by someone sending bitcoin back to himeself. The pow is a solution to this problem, but the extent to which it is a solution is dependent upon there being opportunity for lots of other people besides the devs to get involved.
Really i dont mind a modest premine. I think it gives good incentives. If the devs are holding 5% of the currency supply than i see this as fair and good for the project since they have incentives to make their stake more valuable. But im forced to wonder if, as a result of such a short mining period, if the devs are holding much more than 5%. It worries me, and i think a lot of other people as well.
I would be more worried about devs or other players buying up 5% of the coins on the market because they are so cheap. At current prices 5% would only be worth about 110 bitcoins.
But really im mostly here because im a huge fan of proof of stake and a huge fan of cryptonote and a huge fan of the idea of using POW to distribute stake. So this coin has everything i would ever ever want.
^Love it!
Quote
It should clearly be at least a year long process, probably more. If fairness and decentralized distribution is the goal.
Why a year? Seems arbitrary. Anyway with mining farms/bots etc I personally don't see a prolonged PoW phase doing much for distribution. Why not just get to the good stuff (PoS) sooner rather than later?
btw i entered in December so missed the mining phase by a lot. Wouldn't have made much difference to me anyway - I find GPU mining stressful.
Sure. So let me say first, it is kinda arbitrary, that's a legitimate criticism of my argument.
So its all about that trade off. The more the stake is distributed the more secure the platform. But proof of stake is infact better than poof of work. Thats the reason for switching to it. So if you are running proof of stake too long than you are going too long without switching to the system thats better, the opportunity cost associated with not switching to POW begins to outweigh the benefits of fairer distribution. It would make something of a u shaped curve, the first day is the most benefitical, than the second one is less benefitial but still benefitial, until the day comes when the costs begin to outweigh the benefits and the curve benins to slope back up. The point where that curve is perfectly flat is the perfect point to switch. It would be difficult to determine where this but you could create a model of sorts that would go some way towards giving an idea of the best trade off.
I cant really say what the best trade off would be, but i am pretty confident that it wouldn't be on either of the extreme ends, it wouldn't be 2 weeks and it wouldn't be 100 years.
Sort of the whole point is that POW proves that the devs arnt controlling some ridiculous percentage of the currency supply. Alteast its some reasonable evidence towards that fact. They cant just issue a bunch of currency and then "prove" that they sold it on the market because who knows who is on the other side of the trade. And something like what nxt did, who knows how many of those initial donations were made by the same entity. Who knows how many of them were made by someone sending bitcoin back to himeself. The pow is a solution to this problem, but the extent to which it is a solution is dependent upon there being opportunity for lots of other people besides the devs to get involved.
Really i dont mind a modest premine. I think it gives good incentives. If the devs are holding 5% of the currency supply than i see this as fair and good for the project since they have incentives to make their stake more valuable. But im forced to wonder if, as a result of such a short mining period, if the devs are holding much more than 5%. It worries me, and i think a lot of other people as well.
is this project still being actively developed? how many devs are there? how may hours a day about do they spend working on it? what are their credentials?
There was just an update to the wallet a day or two ago. Don't listen to fud.
http://shadowtalk.org/topic/359/wallet-update-1-3-1-0
wtf? how is that fud? he was just asking. obviously he saw sdc being pumped and checked it out here
Yea. I saw the pump. I even bought 10 dollars worth at the pump valuations. But really im mostly here because im a huge fan of proof of stake and a huge fan of cryptonote and a huge fan of the idea of using POW to distribute stake. So this coin has everything i would ever ever want.
I'm just deeply skeptical of any and all devs. I kind of just assume they are all scammers because 99% of them are.
*edit* Is it true that the pow phase only lasted 2 weeks? If so how do you guys justify that? It should clearly be at least a year long process, probably more. If fairness and decentralized distribution is the goal. Which it should be because more distributed stake means attacks on the network are more expensive and confirmations are more secure.
Please dont mistake hard questions for trolling.
Welcome. I thought the POW phase was 3 weeks, but I'm not sure. I am not too worried about a short mining period because the price is so cheap. Probably most miners dumped their coins for cheap. If not, then the marketcap would be a lot more inflated. As it is, it seems very undervalued. If you have not yet, I highly suggest downloading the wallet and checking it out. Since its HTML wallet, I guess it allows the devs to add a lot more features. Its pretty impressive imo.
But really im mostly here because im a huge fan of proof of stake and a huge fan of cryptonote and a huge fan of the idea of using POW to distribute stake. So this coin has everything i would ever ever want.
^Love it!
Quote
It should clearly be at least a year long process, probably more. If fairness and decentralized distribution is the goal.
Why a year? Seems arbitrary. Anyway with mining farms/bots etc I personally don't see a prolonged PoW phase doing much for distribution. Why not just get to the good stuff (PoS) sooner rather than later?
btw i entered in December so missed the mining phase by a lot. Wouldn't have made much difference to me anyway - I find GPU mining stressful.
is this project still being actively developed? how many devs are there? how may hours a day about do they spend working on it? what are their credentials?
There was just an update to the wallet a day or two ago. Don't listen to fud.
http://shadowtalk.org/topic/359/wallet-update-1-3-1-0
wtf? how is that fud? he was just asking. obviously he saw sdc being pumped and checked it out here
Yea. I saw the pump. I even bought 10 dollars worth at the pump valuations. But really im mostly here because im a huge fan of proof of stake and a huge fan of cryptonote and a huge fan of the idea of using POW to distribute stake. So this coin has everything i would ever ever want.
I'm just deeply skeptical of any and all devs. I kind of just assume they are all scammers because 99% of them are.
*edit* Is it true that the pow phase only lasted 2 weeks? If so how do you guys justify that? It should clearly be at least a year long process, probably more. If fairness and decentralized distribution is the goal. Which it should be because more distributed stake means attacks on the network are more expensive and confirmations are more secure.
Please dont mistake hard questions for trolling.
hey just wondering if anyone here know how to import a privkey for shadow coin when i try in the debug window it says it invalid
is this project still being actively developed? how many devs are there? how may hours a day about do they spend working on it? what are their credentials?
There was just an update to the wallet a day or two ago. Don't listen to fud.
http://shadowtalk.org/topic/359/wallet-update-1-3-1-0
wtf? how is that fud? he was just asking. obviously he saw sdc being pumped and checked it out here
Quote
jurisdiction of the NSA
thats a good one. a regular knee slapper. true. should've considered the wording more. Or just said FBI. lulz.I sure you know what im driving at tho…
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2855872/us-senator-introduces-bill-to-block-fbi-backdoor-access.html
I was just poking fun. I know what you mean.
and u were right to (poke fun)"NSA" and "jurisdiction" don't belong in the same sentence
Quote
jurisdiction of the NSA
thats a good one. a regular knee slapper. true. should've considered the wording more. Or just said FBI. lulz.I sure you know what im driving at tho…
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2855872/us-senator-introduces-bill-to-block-fbi-backdoor-access.html
I was just poking fun. I know what you mean.
Quote
jurisdiction of the NSA
thats a good one. a regular knee slapper. true. should've considered the wording more. Or just said FBI. lulz.I sure you know what im driving at tho…
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2855872/us-senator-introduces-bill-to-block-fbi-backdoor-access.html
Jump to: