The most important thing is to change and grow. The POS system would boost again the currency up. 
I disagree, i say just keep it the way it is. POS is shit anyways 
Topic: Vertcoin - 1 | ASIC - 0 | Lyra2RE | Decentralised | GPU Mineable | Open Source - page 5. (Read 415467 times)
February 27, 2017, 09:52:08 AM
February 27, 2017, 07:42:50 AM
The most important thing is to change and grow. The POS system would boost again the currency up.
February 27, 2017, 07:11:06 AM
VTC should pass by rebrand, and become POS instead of POW.
Whats the point of asic resistance when you're gonna go POS?? February 27, 2017, 06:42:16 AM
VTC should pass by rebrand, and become POS instead of POW.
February 27, 2017, 12:49:22 AM
When VTC to the moon guys ?
February 26, 2017, 08:36:56 PM
Updated info on Segwit for informational Purpose Only
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5vbofp/initially_i_liked_segwit_but_then_i_learned/
blockstream put in the FIBRE network to change the topology of the network (as gatekeepers) so that if segwit activates the segwit nodes control what gets filtered down to old native nodes.
in simple terms segwit nodes receive a cluster of data which is one lump of data called the blockweight where the signatures have their own txid to link back to the txid of the baseblock. if they have whitelisted old native nodes they have to send the smaller 'base' block' to old native nodes
its bait and switched to pretend its one network but because the old nodes are not receiving the same data as the segwit nodes. a fresh segwit node wont sync from a native node.
a native node wont receive segwit unconfirmed transactions. so its a 'pretend' single network. but with differing data held and/or relayed.
same goes with segwits pruned nodes. a segwit node wanting a full sync wont sync from a pruned node. so again all these core features are causing issues for the REAL full node count.because not all the nodes hold all the same data.
core have swept under the carpet how they have made anything not segwit as being second class. but pretended its all good because its "compatible"
as you can see below.
on the left is what people for 6-7 years thought the node network looked like. with pools sending out data and EVERYONE sharing the same data.
on the right is how how segwit/fibre has changed the network topology. to centralise segwit as the gate keepers of what data non segwit nodes get
and yes, segwit nodes could simply not whitelist old native nodes and make it reliant on the pools to send data to old nodes, which looking at this image below is the one on the right.(very worse case scenario, but plausible)
EDIT:gmaxwell buzzwords
downstream(old) <-> upstream(segwit) <-> pool
its all explained here including the bit about signature/tx data
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17607565
FYI:
BTC Miners are rejecting seqwit (only ~30% support)
LTC Miners are rejecting segwit (only ~20% support)
Looks like just you & groestlcoin are activating segwit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5vbofp/initially_i_liked_segwit_but_then_i_learned/
Quote
You wanted people like me to support you and install your code, Core / Blockstream?
Then you shouldn't have a released messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack like SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - with its random, arbitrary, centrally planned, ridiculously tiny 1.7MB blocksize -
and its dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork semantics.
Now it's too late. The market will reject SegWit - and it's all Core / Blockstream's fault.
The market prefers simpler, safer, future-proof, market-based solutions such as Bitcoin Unlimited.
Then you shouldn't have a released messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack like SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - with its random, arbitrary, centrally planned, ridiculously tiny 1.7MB blocksize -
and its dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork semantics.
Now it's too late. The market will reject SegWit - and it's all Core / Blockstream's fault.
The market prefers simpler, safer, future-proof, market-based solutions such as Bitcoin Unlimited.
Quote
The damage which would be caused by SegWit (at the financial, software, and governance level) would be massive:
Millions of lines of other Bitcoin code would have to be rewritten (in wallets, on exchanges, at businesses) in order to become compatible with all the messy non-standard kludges and workarounds which Blockstream was forced into adding to the code (the famous "technical debt") in order to get SegWit to work as a soft fork.
SegWit was originally sold to us as a "code clean-up". Heck, even I intially fell for it when I saw an early presentation by Pieter Wuille on YouTube from one of Blockstream's many, censored Bitcoin scaling stalling conferences)
But as we all later all discovered, SegWit is just a messy hack.
Probably the most dangerous aspect of SegWit is that it changes all transactions into "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" without SegWit - all because of the messy workarounds necessary to do SegWit as a soft-fork. The kludges and workarounds involving SegWit's "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" semantics would only work as long as SegWit is still installed.
This means that it would be impossible to roll-back SegWit - because all SegWit transactions that get recorded on the blockchain would now be interpreted as "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" - so, SegWit's dangerous and messy "kludges and workarounds and hacks" would have to be made permanent - otherwise, anyone could spend those "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" SegWit coins!
Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs. If Segwit is rolled back, all funds locked in Segwit outputs can be taken by anyone. As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows.
Millions of lines of other Bitcoin code would have to be rewritten (in wallets, on exchanges, at businesses) in order to become compatible with all the messy non-standard kludges and workarounds which Blockstream was forced into adding to the code (the famous "technical debt") in order to get SegWit to work as a soft fork.
SegWit was originally sold to us as a "code clean-up". Heck, even I intially fell for it when I saw an early presentation by Pieter Wuille on YouTube from one of Blockstream's many, censored Bitcoin scaling stalling conferences)
But as we all later all discovered, SegWit is just a messy hack.
Probably the most dangerous aspect of SegWit is that it changes all transactions into "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" without SegWit - all because of the messy workarounds necessary to do SegWit as a soft-fork. The kludges and workarounds involving SegWit's "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" semantics would only work as long as SegWit is still installed.
This means that it would be impossible to roll-back SegWit - because all SegWit transactions that get recorded on the blockchain would now be interpreted as "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" - so, SegWit's dangerous and messy "kludges and workarounds and hacks" would have to be made permanent - otherwise, anyone could spend those "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" SegWit coins!
Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs. If Segwit is rolled back, all funds locked in Segwit outputs can be taken by anyone. As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows.
How do the signatures work? They are separated into two separate blocks so there would be two blockchains running? One would store a block of transactions and a block of signatures?
blockstream put in the FIBRE network to change the topology of the network (as gatekeepers) so that if segwit activates the segwit nodes control what gets filtered down to old native nodes.
in simple terms segwit nodes receive a cluster of data which is one lump of data called the blockweight where the signatures have their own txid to link back to the txid of the baseblock. if they have whitelisted old native nodes they have to send the smaller 'base' block' to old native nodes
its bait and switched to pretend its one network but because the old nodes are not receiving the same data as the segwit nodes. a fresh segwit node wont sync from a native node.
a native node wont receive segwit unconfirmed transactions. so its a 'pretend' single network. but with differing data held and/or relayed.
same goes with segwits pruned nodes. a segwit node wanting a full sync wont sync from a pruned node. so again all these core features are causing issues for the REAL full node count.because not all the nodes hold all the same data.
core have swept under the carpet how they have made anything not segwit as being second class. but pretended its all good because its "compatible"
as you can see below.
on the left is what people for 6-7 years thought the node network looked like. with pools sending out data and EVERYONE sharing the same data.
on the right is how how segwit/fibre has changed the network topology. to centralise segwit as the gate keepers of what data non segwit nodes get
and yes, segwit nodes could simply not whitelist old native nodes and make it reliant on the pools to send data to old nodes, which looking at this image below is the one on the right.(very worse case scenario, but plausible)
EDIT:gmaxwell buzzwords
downstream(old) <-> upstream(segwit) <-> pool
upstream(segwit) <-> pool<-> downstream(old)
its all explained here including the bit about signature/tx data
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17607565
FYI:
BTC Miners are rejecting seqwit (only ~30% support)
LTC Miners are rejecting segwit (only ~20% support)
Looks like just you & groestlcoin are activating segwit.
February 26, 2017, 07:53:58 PM
last days 
February 26, 2017, 06:39:59 PM
Is Vertcoin ASICs mining only? the ASICs not available for all cryptocurrencies fans what is Vertcoin the current price?
The whole idea of vertcoin is anti-asic .
February 26, 2017, 06:23:45 PM
Is Vertcoin ASICs mining only? the ASICs not available for all cryptocurrencies fans what is Vertcoin the current price?
No, Vertcoin is essentially only GPU-mineable now.
February 26, 2017, 05:28:43 PM
Is Vertcoin ASICs mining only? the ASICs not available for all cryptocurrencies fans what is Vertcoin the current price?
February 26, 2017, 04:49:12 AM
Nice to see new updates on that awesome project, let us make Vertcoin great again.
February 26, 2017, 01:03:12 AM
Segwit signalling from March 1st https://github.com/vertcoin/vertcoin-1/releases/tag/v0.11.0.0-rc1 
February 25, 2017, 10:19:25 AM
DEV，Any VTC news?
Yes. Apparently, the Wallet with SegWit will be launched before the end of the month:
Quote
Hello everyone,
I am pleased to announce the release of Vertcoin v0.10.1.0. This is intended to be the final “old client” release before the SegWit update, hopefully coming before the end of the month. This wallet update prepares the way for SegWit by deprecating Stealth Addresses since they will not be available in the next wallet version. Those still using stealth should continue to use their current wallet until they are satisfied they have redeemed all of their stealth inputs as there is no way to retrieve them from this wallet release. Additionally, this release implements lowS signatures which are required for BIP66. Finally, it updates the default transaction fee structure so that transactions from this wallet will be propagated by the new wallet once it is released.
Whilst this update is not mandatory, it is highly recommended as it will take longer and longer for pre-v0.10.1 wallets’ transactions to be included in a block as more of the network upgrades to the new SegWit wallet.
The release can be found here: https://github.com/vertcoin/vertcoin/releases
Thanks,
James
https://vertcoin.org/wp/wallet-update-v0-10-1-0/
February 25, 2017, 07:25:38 AM
Will VTC first coin with Segwit?
February 24, 2017, 02:34:44 PM
Windows Vertcoin Wallet 0.10.1 is here -> https://github.com/vertcoin/vertcoin/releases
32bit version will be also available?
February 24, 2017, 02:03:17 PM
Windows Vertcoin Wallet 0.10.1 is here -> https://github.com/vertcoin/vertcoin/releases
February 23, 2017, 02:15:09 PM
DEV，Any VTC news?
Yes. Apparently, the Wallet with SegWit will be launched before the end of the month:
Quote
Hello everyone,
I am pleased to announce the release of Vertcoin v0.10.1.0. This is intended to be the final “old client” release before the SegWit update, hopefully coming before the end of the month. This wallet update prepares the way for SegWit by deprecating Stealth Addresses since they will not be available in the next wallet version. Those still using stealth should continue to use their current wallet until they are satisfied they have redeemed all of their stealth inputs as there is no way to retrieve them from this wallet release. Additionally, this release implements lowS signatures which are required for BIP66. Finally, it updates the default transaction fee structure so that transactions from this wallet will be propagated by the new wallet once it is released.
Whilst this update is not mandatory, it is highly recommended as it will take longer and longer for pre-v0.10.1 wallets’ transactions to be included in a block as more of the network upgrades to the new SegWit wallet.
The release can be found here: https://github.com/vertcoin/vertcoin/releases
Thanks,
James
https://vertcoin.org/wp/wallet-update-v0-10-1-0/
February 23, 2017, 08:53:52 AM
DEV，Any VTC news?
February 23, 2017, 06:33:59 AM
Already planned the roadmap for 2017? Or the novelty of the year is the implementation of Segwit, and nothing else... (...)
Also interesting. Same LTC 
How about LN. To get started on the LTC basis.
Any link
This here: http://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits
February 22, 2017, 02:37:24 PM
Already planned the roadmap for 2017? Or the novelty of the year is the implementation of Segwit, and nothing else... (...)
Also interesting. Same LTC How about LN. To get started on the LTC basis.
Any link
Jump to: