Topic: [Ultracoin] [Est. Feb 2014] ~ ASIC Resistant & Ultrafast 6 Second Transactions! - page 133. (Read 381018 times)

Getting insane amounts of orphans, is there anything i can do to minimize this?

Awesome thankyou

You're right, I don't understand why Bitcoin doesn't take your advice and inflate and dilute Bitcoin to 100 Trillion Bitcoins.

You know, for easier access and to help new users. Imagine how much more popular Bitcoin would be.  lol

In fact, if 100 Trillion is better than 21 million then imagine if we followed Zimbabwe and went to quadrillions?  Hahaha!

I really can't believe this conversation actually needs to take place; no wonder engineers are now required to take economics courses.  lol

Ultrabex.com is up and it doesn't look like there are any issues, enjoy!

Sincerely,

Steven "Rapture"
Management Director
[email protected]
Ultracoin

another thing QBK  had a lot of trouble with a stable explorer, now it is hosted with http://blockexperts.com/qbk# and there have been no problems since the change, im fairly sure it was not to expensive, i would be happy to make a contribution toward a stable block explorer, and im sure there would be others in the community that would make small contributions too. 

your comment came across a bit rude and pretty arrogant, "Some feedback for you: I personally question your background and your credentials." i couldn't help poking you in the ribs.
was just making the point, that opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, 
 I don't have any formal background in finance, but what Steve was saying made perfect sense to me. your questions where all valid and understandable, but the personal dispersion's where not necessary. 
Onward and upward

I WILL beat the hell out of this dead horse.


I will expound in my own words...
Let's make some favorable assumptions for the 'inflation steals value, period' argument:

1) Every single miner of UTC is mining and dumping as long as it is profitable to do so (Not a smart assumption. I know for a fact that it isn't true with YACoin because I mine it personally, and I hold all of those YACs)

2) If you take a snapshot of the UTC price right now, it is at the minimum price that is currently profitable to mine-and-dump.

3) All current miners are completely LOYAL, and they will mine and hold until reaching the same, constant profitability.

So with these favorable assumptions, let's say the block reward is reduced from 30 to 10 UTC per block (per minute). Supply and demand right? Since the miners are completely loyal, the difficulty is unchanged, and no one will be dumping the coin until the coin has reached triple the price. The demand will also be unchanged (another assumption), so the same buy support will still be there to maintain that level. Oh wait, but you have a lot of sell orders on the books between the current price and triple the current price, so let's make another assumption that every single buy order is removed. So you just used a little supply-and-demand logic and blasted the price up 3-fold concordantly with the 3-fold decrease in block rewards. UTC will have jumped from #150 to #87 in total marketcap. It will still be behind a YACoin clone, which has not manipulated the reward structure at all since inception, but people have different ideas of success.

UTC will prove that the marketcap/price of a coin can simply be manipulated by a dev team changing the reward structure. The news of this plan working perfectly will resonate throughout the crypto world and with economists everywhere. UTC would even prove Austrian economists wrong who claim central planning and manipulation of the money supply just doesn't work. Bitcoin will then have to reduce its block reward as well. Of course, the obvious question that will come next is: if it worked reducing the reward from 30 to 10, why not go from 10 to 1? Or 10 to 0.00000000001. Just make that supply side near zero? Right? Simple.

I will tell you my prediction. First, there will be people completely dumping the coin because they don't want to be invested in a coin that is manipulated like that. I'm sure there will be some people buying UTC anticipating a 'pump'--a pump is a pump artificial or not. However, the coin will NOT reach the triple price-point because 1) You will have a lot of sell orders to burn through of people turning a great profit 2) Mine-and-dumpers will continue to mine-and-dump because the difficulty will drop as necessary for miners to be able to turn a profit. A lot of disenchanted miners will look at other coins, which YAC will thank you for. I believe these things are already happening as part of speculation.

rapture333, I think you know that you are really banking on MORE buy support with your change in the reward structure. I personally wouldn't invest in any coin where the money supply is centrally manipulated--even if the 'dev' earned 5 PhDs and legally changed his name to Friedrich Hayek.

Finally, the whole commentary above really ignores the END money supply. I get that your plan is more about addressing the long-term reward structure vs the short term? But you still say inflation is diluting the value. The long-term inflation is zero. So it seems to me you are really saying in such a statement is that the long-term marketcap of $321,000 [100,000,000 (total Ultracoins there will ever be) X $0.00321 (current price)] is too high. Think about that...

let me ask you some question

From the investor point of view waht is the diference betewen 1 milion at 10000 satoshi  vs 10 milion at 1000 satoshi?

 think its the same

But from the acces to the coin  ( from new users ) its a huge diference .

lets take by example, if BTC price was 10 dolars , many new useres wil try it, its cheap lets play whit it a litle bit, but whit BTC at 1200 dolars ,thats a compleet diferente story..


of course the crypto coins can be spilt  in 100 000 0000 units, but  its not the same thing


I prefer a coin whith easy access.

Bravo on the decrease in inflation.

I don't get why that's so complicated.

Every successful corporation spends billions per year to cut back dilution which is what a cut in subsidy and/or max cap supply is.

This is basic supply an demand and shouldn't even need an explanation.  Staying true to a code which dilutes you into oblivion or kills future investor value is absurd.

And miners won't drop off any more than if you decided to add 100 trillion coins.  The lower supply will result in an equal increase in price (when demand eventually increases) so miners will remain the same. 

Glad the devs here made the right economic decision regarding the future inflation of this coin.


Cheers!

I still dont agree whith the fork

i have see many coins doing that, and a few have suceded most get worst after the fork

but besides that , i can understand de pow reward decrese,  i think it will drop off miners and it will drop the coin securyt


but most off all i dont understand why changing the nfactor, is there a good reason for that?

"yet no one listens to the Beave"

They do.

how much hash you get whit gtx 970¿

I don't believe Beave has any foul intentions, quite the contrary it would seem. He is asking all the right questions and I respect that.

Why?

+2 and anyone can contact them to get the explorer up and then donate at $10/month to keep it going, no need for official/dev intervention. I got MINT explorer up & running with 1 month donation & others chipped in. I donate every week to keep it going.

This is exactly what i get and it seem most profitable to me at the moment but volume is so low that it is a pain in the ass to sell even little amount at good prices, ie no liquidity.

ATM there is no incentive that I see to do that. Most miners don't mine to hold even when they're losing money. ( I'm not a miner and haven't been for a long time.)