SUPERCOIN'S REVIVAL - page 35. | Bitcointalksearch.org

mamamae

legendary

Activity: 1188

Merit: 1001

pretty much my idea of supercoin .
there are options in some months, if someone want to value the idea of super
going into stratis platform with BTC-N or the new nxt 2.0 Ardor

Quote from: CoinMin3r on August 02, 2016, 11:41:20 AM

MWC have low coin but still have double than SUPER i.e. 50 millions more. Why to make things complicated mixing them? They should operate individually & independently.

CoinMin3r

hero member

Activity: 843

Merit: 518

Defend Bitcoin and its PoW: bitcoincleanup.com

Quote from: shrimpdigger on August 02, 2016, 11:03:09 AM

Lets not do voting then but lets get a general consensus of people opinions right here. If its too hard to call maybe using blockchain tech and our brains we can set up a way of honest voting.
Griffith to remain as leader/director/oversear, he has proven over time he has the best interests for the life of the coin at heart. He might not be the best at writing new code, thats ok. Thats why we look for devs that are for hire to work on new ideas. Grow the team.
The development of a coin should i think be in the hands of the community.
ECC i think should not be included, its coin count would throw things out, plus its true potential will be realized independently of other coins.
MWC and its low coin count is the perfect choice for going cross-chain. It was delisted recently from Bitrex, maybe there's opportunity here for it relisted as/with the new Super once new works has been reviewed and implemented.

MWC have low coin but still have double than SUPER i.e. 50 millions more. Why to make things complicated mixing them? They should operate individually & independently.

shrimpdigger

member

Activity: 123

Merit: 10

NYC NYC NYC

Quote from: mdtspain on August 02, 2016, 05:37:00 AM

Quote from: CoinMin3r on August 02, 2016, 05:29:05 AM

Quote from: mdtspain on August 02, 2016, 04:51:27 AM

I think that there is no need for any votes.

The development of a coin should be in the hands of the developers, they should make the decision how to continue with the coin, not the investors that all have a focus on fast profit. Investors that don't like the direction that the developers go can step out while others will step in.

We have seen it many times now that the voting process is always manipulated with false votes and Never has brought anything good. It also is a sign that the developers are not sure what to do next.

So in my opinion NO VOTING

No offence but you're saying this coz you were once in the dev team of MWC.
Why should it get merged? They can operate individually & work fine.
Thanks

No offence but if you read it well...I respect the decision of the developer one way or the other.
I don't think it's good to let the people decide which way to go by voting as there is no honest voting.

Lets not do voting then but lets get a general consensus of people opinions right here. If its too hard to call maybe using blockchain tech and our brains we can set up a way of honest voting.
Griffith to remain as leader/director/oversear, he has proven over time he has the best interests for the life of the coin at heart. He might not be the best at writing new code, thats ok. Thats why we look for devs that are for hire to work on new ideas. Grow the team.
The development of a coin should i think be in the hands of the community.
ECC i think should not be included, its coin count would throw things out, plus its true potential will be realized independently of other coins.
MWC and its low coin count is the perfect choice for going cross-chain. It was delisted recently from Bitrex, maybe there's opportunity here for it relisted as/with the new Super once new works has been reviewed and implemented.

mdtspain

legendary

Activity: 1076

Merit: 1003

Quote from: CoinMin3r on August 02, 2016, 05:29:05 AM

Quote from: mdtspain on August 02, 2016, 04:51:27 AM

I think that there is no need for any votes.

The development of a coin should be in the hands of the developers, they should make the decision how to continue with the coin, not the investors that all have a focus on fast profit. Investors that don't like the direction that the developers go can step out while others will step in.

We have seen it many times now that the voting process is always manipulated with false votes and Never has brought anything good. It also is a sign that the developers are not sure what to do next.

So in my opinion NO VOTING

No offence but you're saying this coz you were once in the dev team of MWC.
Why should it get merged? They can operate individually & work fine.
Thanks

No offence but if you read it well...I respect the decision of the developer one way or the other.
I don't think it's good to let the people decide which way to go by voting as there is no honest voting.

CoinMin3r

hero member

Activity: 843

Merit: 518

Defend Bitcoin and its PoW: bitcoincleanup.com

Quote from: mdtspain on August 02, 2016, 04:51:27 AM

I think that there is no need for any votes.

The development of a coin should be in the hands of the developers, they should make the decision how to continue with the coin, not the investors that all have a focus on fast profit. Investors that don't like the direction that the developers go can step out while others will step in.

We have seen it many times now that the voting process is always manipulated with false votes and Never has brought anything good. It also is a sign that the developers are not sure what to do next.

So in my opinion NO VOTING

No offence but you're saying this coz you were once in the dev team of MWC.
Why should it get merged? They can operate individually & work fine.
Thanks

mdtspain

legendary

Activity: 1076

Merit: 1003

Quote from: kiklo on August 02, 2016, 05:23:18 AM

Quote from: mdtspain on August 02, 2016, 05:11:29 AM

Good one....Barry is putting a lot of work into it atm. Maybe you should ask them if they see this as a lead dev or sole dev? In other words...Is Barry willing to be the dev for Super if Griffith steps aside or do they prefer to work together?

My issue is Griffith is tied up with ECCoin and Some of Vegas coins plus the coin wallet service part of flycoin,
that really leaves very little time for Supercoin.

Which I would like to see Barry take over Super as the recent timeline shows,
He has the time to be its Lead Dev , which will be a benefit for all of us that hold Supercoin.

But either way a choice needs to be made and announced.
I personally want to see a clear focus direction for this coin with someone spending the required time to make it great, and that will required a dedicated Dev.

Look at Nav coin , they are receiving accolades and a massive price spike for an anonymous PoS coin,
Supercoin should also be receiving that , but due to lack of focus, it is not, that needs to change.

Cool

I agree on that

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: mdtspain on August 02, 2016, 05:11:29 AM

Good one....Barry is putting a lot of work into it atm. Maybe you should ask them if they see this as a lead dev or sole dev? In other words...Is Barry willing to be the dev for Super if Griffith steps aside or do they prefer to work together?

My issue is Griffith is tied up with ECCoin and Some of Vegas coins plus the coin wallet service part of flycoin,
that really leaves very little time for Supercoin.

Which I would like to see Barry take over Super as the recent timeline shows,
He has the time to be its Lead Dev , which will be a benefit for all of us that hold Supercoin.

But either way a choice needs to be made and announced.
I personally want to see a clear focus direction for this coin with someone spending the required time to make it great, and that will required a dedicated Dev.

Look at Nav coin , they are receiving accolades and a massive price spike for an anonymous PoS coin,
Supercoin should also be receiving that , but due to lack of focus, it is not, that needs to change.

Cool

FYI:
This is not meant as a slight toward Griffith,
He is a Talented Young Man with a Great Future Ahead of Him,
but right now Supercoin needs Dedicated Focus, and Barry (who also seems very Talented) is in a better place to provide it at this time, IMO.

mdtspain

legendary

Activity: 1076

Merit: 1003

Quote from: kiklo on August 02, 2016, 04:54:55 AM

Quote from: mdtspain on August 02, 2016, 04:51:27 AM

I think that there is no need for any votes.

The development of a coin should be in the hands of the developers, they should make the decision how to continue with the coin, not the investors that all have a focus on fast profit. Investors that don't like the direction that the developers go can step out while others will step in.

We have seen it many times now that the voting process is always manipulated with false votes and Never has brought anything good. It also is a sign that the developers are not sure what to do next.

So in my opinion NO VOTING

Ok ,

So who is the Lead Dev of Supercoin Barry or Griffith?

Cool

Good one....Barry is putting a lot of work into it atm. Maybe you should ask them if they see this as a lead dev or sole dev? In other words...Is Barry willing to be the dev for Super if Griffith steps aside or do they prefer to work together?

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: mdtspain on August 02, 2016, 04:51:27 AM

I think that there is no need for any votes.

The development of a coin should be in the hands of the developers, they should make the decision how to continue with the coin, not the investors that all have a focus on fast profit. Investors that don't like the direction that the developers go can step out while others will step in.

We have seen it many times now that the voting process is always manipulated with false votes and Never has brought anything good. It also is a sign that the developers are not sure what to do next.

So in my opinion NO VOTING

Ok ,

So who is the Lead Dev of Supercoin Barry or Griffith?

Cool

mdtspain

legendary

Activity: 1076

Merit: 1003

I think that there is no need for any votes.

The development of a coin should be in the hands of the developers, they should make the decision how to continue with the coin, not the investors that all have a focus on fast profit. Investors that don't like the direction that the developers go can step out while others will step in.

We have seen it many times now that the voting process is always manipulated with false votes and Never has brought anything good. It also is a sign that the developers are not sure what to do next.

So in my opinion NO VOTING

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Griffith on August 02, 2016, 03:47:12 AM

There is no point to move MWC to new chain if it isnt being merged, the chain is small enough to function as is, it is only like 300MB memory max compared to supercoins 1.6 gigs.

I suppose we should put it to a vote if MWC gets merged with super into the new super or not. If the answer is no, then you dont really need to use barry's system at all... you can just condense the chain normally by reducing the size of each block index in memory and cleaning the chain. should reduce it by a minimum of 50% although i can run that test again if requested

should we just put it up to a vote?

Considering this is a Supercoin community forum, I would say a vote would be in order, as they started a separate thread to break away from the trio of coins and reclaim their own personal community.
Merging MWC into Super now is kind of ignoring that fact.

Considering the work Barry has put into it , I would prefer he handle lead Dev at Supercoin & the swap while you handle the lead Dev at ECCoin,
that way your talents can be focused on a specific coin instead of disoriented on multiple coins, which was a problem to begin with.
I know alot of your time is being taken up with other projects and if Barry is willing would be a better solution for everyone.

But that is just my opinion, a formal vote should be held to decide.

Cool

FYI:
6 hours and still no response from Bleutrade's support and my ecc deposit has still not shown up there. Tongue

Griffith

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1000

Quote from: kiklo on August 02, 2016, 01:06:46 AM

Why should MWC be included, it is basically a dead coin.
Also would make the swap a lot simpler if it is Super only, and then no need to change names.

FYI:
ECC wallet at Bleutrade is offline, no response from their support yet. Tongue

I responded in the other thread about ECC and feel free to PM me, but i think you are mistaken. ECC wallet is not offline with Bleutrade, i sent and withdrew coins from Bleutrade less than 2 hours ago. (at the time i responded to you in the other thread) and there is no problem with the wallet. it also doesnt have the alert symbol for wallet maintenance either.

and MWC was going to be included because the auto chain swap can put two coins onto one new chain.

Quote from: CoinMin3r on August 02, 2016, 03:29:00 AM

Yep MWC mustn't be included.
But yeah MWC can also use this system lonely to move to the new chain.

There is no point to move MWC to new chain if it isnt being merged, the chain is small enough to function as is, it is only like 300MB memory max compared to supercoins 1.6 gigs.

I suppose we should put it to a vote if MWC gets merged with super into the new super or not. If the answer is no, then you dont really need to use barry's system at all... you can just condense the chain normally by reducing the size of each block index in memory and cleaning the chain. should reduce it by a minimum of 50% although i can run that test again if requested

should we just put it up to a vote?

CoinMin3r

hero member

Activity: 843

Merit: 518

Defend Bitcoin and its PoW: bitcoincleanup.com

Quote from: kiklo on August 02, 2016, 01:06:46 AM

Quote from: Griffith on August 02, 2016, 12:30:12 AM

ECC should not be a part of this, it should only be MWC and SUPER on the new chain

Why should MWC be included, it is basically a dead coin.
Also would make the swap a lot simpler if it is Super only, and then no need to change names.

FYI:
ECC wallet at Bleutrade is offline, no response from their support yet. Tongue

Yep MWC mustn't be included.
But yeah MWC can also use this system lonely to move to the new chain.

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Griffith on August 02, 2016, 12:30:12 AM

ECC should not be a part of this, it should only be MWC and SUPER on the new chain

Why should MWC be included, it is basically a dead coin.
Also would make the swap a lot simpler if it is Super only, and then no need to change names.

FYI:
ECC wallet at Bleutrade is offline, no response from their support yet. Tongue

Griffith

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1000

ECC should not be a part of this, it should only be MWC and SUPER on the new chain

mdtspain

legendary

Activity: 1076

Merit: 1003

Quote from: barrysty1e on July 31, 2016, 05:35:35 AM

Being built with patience, care and testing at each step..

Looking good Barry/James. Good testing is the way to go Wink

pro-investor

full member

Activity: 229

Merit: 100

Quote from: barrysty1e on July 31, 2016, 05:35:35 AM

Quote from: pro-investor on July 31, 2016, 05:04:21 AM

Quote from: jakiman on July 26, 2016, 05:05:24 PM

Rebranding to a whole new name with a stronger coin tech & dev team sounds like the way to go?
But maybe we should still keep the "SuperSend" name as it sounds cool and was my idea. Grin

What about "SuperDead" ?

definitely dead, well..

Looks like SuperDead on a defibrillator. Maybe there is still hope....LOL Cheesy

Majormax

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1129

Quote from: barrysty1e on July 31, 2016, 05:35:35 AM

that was a send from the unmodified super wallet, to the new one (or anywhere really?)
yep nothing to see here folks, move along.. the walking dead

Certainly pretty lively when I start it up. Syncs fast and stakes like lightning.

barrysty1e

hero member

Activity: 636

Merit: 516

Quote from: pro-investor on July 31, 2016, 05:04:21 AM

Quote from: jakiman on July 26, 2016, 05:05:24 PM

Rebranding to a whole new name with a stronger coin tech & dev team sounds like the way to go?
But maybe we should still keep the "SuperSend" name as it sounds cool and was my idea. Grin

What about "SuperDead" ?

definitely dead, well.. like dead but that other thing.. living?
being built with patience, care and testing at each step..

that was a send from the unmodified super wallet, to the new one (or anywhere really?)
yep nothing to see here folks, move along.. the walking dead

pro-investor

full member

Activity: 229

Merit: 100

Quote from: jakiman on July 26, 2016, 05:05:24 PM

Rebranding to a whole new name with a stronger coin tech & dev team sounds like the way to go?
But maybe we should still keep the "SuperSend" name as it sounds cool and was my idea. Grin

What about "SuperDead" ?

Topic: SUPERCOIN'S REVIVAL - page 35. (Read 115695 times)