Foreword submitted by
Alright, I’ve been sitting on the sidelines about most of the dealings with Vertcoin because I felt like a lot of the sensible voices were loud enough on their own. Many people have stepped up to the plate and developed amazing products that benefit Vertcoin at no addition expense to the original development team. I’ve seen and helped test/brainstorm some incredible projects. Vert.geek.nz was a great example: a project that promoted p2pool mining while still allowing miners to reap the benefit of merged mining. Before nzsquirrell
brought us this product we were all forced to either solo mine or to switch to a mining pool that support merged coins (namely SimpleVert at the time). V2p was another amazing product. There's the One Click Miner that's being developed right now... There are a lot more, but my point is that people were able to see a need for a new service, and build that service without any voting or public funding or whatever. And they did an amazing job because they thought things through. With input from multiple sources, and a slow, steady brainstorming session, they were able to develop something that really couldn’t have been made better. Democracy in Action
Alternatively, Vertcoin itself is being left to an absolutely ridiculous voting process right now that WILL destroy the coin, and here’s why: The democratic process doesn’t work. If you build a system by which the majority can make these kinds of decisions, you create an environment based purely on mob mentality. If I can convince a large enough group of people that a certain idea is better than another, I win. This is extremely bad if you’re trying to gather interest from investors as well because it creates too much variance in coin value and feature sets (the idea of changing the also they would probably like, since that’s something Vertcoin has been about since the beginning, changing the inner workings of the coin simply to combat a single “problem” is VERY BAD if you want to attract investors because they see these moves as signs of weakness). Development
Now, I’ll come back to the VertVote process later, because I think the most important thing to talk about right now is the decision-making process on the part of our developers.
The VTC dev team has done numerous things that don’t make sense to a number of users lately, and they need to be addressed. First, the website update. We’ve beat this horse to a pulp, and I understand that, but I think people still need to keep this in mind. When the new site was released, there wasn’t any input from the community. There wasn’t any play-testing or public brainstorming done to help promote discussion that might have found issues with this site. For example, the “Mining” page still doesn’t have a single mining pool listed, which leaves a user to go out and find a solid pool on their own. This isn’t easy, especially for someone who doesn’t even know how cryptocurrencies work (the primary audience for a site like this should be users with no crypto experience). The same goes for the “Details” page. There’s plenty of technical information, but that doesn’t mean anything to a regular person. They don’t know what an algorithm is, or what block times/rewards are… It even mentioned merged-mining, without any information on what that is. It’s just confusing for a newbie. Management
Second, and similarly, the marketing fund got thrown into a pit of uselessness. Vertcoin.org was advertised to miners on a site where people go to see the profitability and mining calculations for a number of coins. Let’s just say that the ad actually catches a miners eye and they click on it. It would lead them to a site that has no information on which mining pools they can/should connect to, aside from p2pool. So the most common frequenter of that site can’t access the most important information he would want from the Vertcoin website. I want to know how that seemed like a good idea.
Alternatively, a group of dedicated Vertans (including one miner that has somewhere in the ballpark of 40 rigs, so he’s pretty damn dedicated), built an entire site from scratch that addressed a number of things for regular folks who we should be attracting to Vertcoin, and presented it to the community and the development team. I realize that there’s a sort of pride in work mentality that might have made the devs prefer their own site, but in this case the new presentation was, in my opinion, better. Furthermore, the devs could have taken this new site and moved it over straight away with almost no other changes, besides a couple small fixes and integration to include mobile browsers. Instead, all they got was a 'thanks for the suggestions, I’ll use some of your stuff if it seems fitting’. If you want to check out the alternative site that a few dedicated Vertans built, check it out here. VertVote
Now, I promised to come back to VertVote. VertVote says on their front page: "You may vote once on any active poll. Make your voice heard Vertan!”, yet there’s literally nothing stopping a member from voting multiple times. So now we’re making decisions about the life of the coin based on how many possible mis-informed people vote for something, with the honest folks losing out more than anyone else (since the honest ones are the ones less likely to cheat)… Probably the most important factor for VertVote would be the fact that it's in the hands of such a knee-jerk crew right now. I didn't even realize that the vote for block maturation was actually a decision-making vote. I assumed it was simply a poll that the dev team wanted to conduct to get a gauge of how strongly the miners feel on the subject. Instead, they took one of the most poorly worded/conducted votes and turned it into the final decision on the continuation of the coin. That was the wrong decision.
Not only that, but it appears that the dev team has decided to interpret the voting results however they see fit, without letting anyone know the conditions of the vote in advance. The example of this being that fact that they completely disregarded the winning vote and instead gave the vote to the second-highest result. To me, this would be like throwing the clear presidential winner out because he only had 49% of the vote (so 51% didn’t want him) and instead picking the candidate who had 30% of the vote simply because he was among the majority… It makes no sense, and if you were going to start a vote with such a senseless base to it, you should have stated as much and given voters more time to decide before they cast their vote(s).
As for the VertVote manipulation, for those who don’t believe me. It’s incredibly easy, and ridiculous. To test things out, I used 100 VTC, spread it out across 10 VTC addresses and cast a vote from each. Nothing in the site, not even a browser cookie, stopped me from casting multiple votes. But then I thought a bit more. Why limit myself by how much VTC I have? All I need is 10 VTC in an address at the moment I cast my vote. So really, I just need 10 VTC plus [number of votes I want to cast] times [transaction fee to send 10 VTC]. I could just keep creating wallets, sending the 10 VTC to the new wallet, and vote again… On the other hand, one of the measures to fight against this behavior is a block on IP addresses submitting multiple votes. This doesn't seem all that logical, considering multiple people could reside at one location / share an internet connection and not be able to voice their opinion as well as a single person / internet user. Economically, These are Bad Decisions
As for the block subsidy change proposal: This is getting out of hand. Cryptocurrencies’ values need to stay in line with regular products and fiat currency. A very successful cryptocurrency should have about a 1:1 ratio with things normal people are used to. What this means is that we want Vertcoin to settle in value somewhere between $0.50 and $3 each, so that normal people can easily convert the value and go from there. Artificially halting/slowing the production of Vertcoin may result in a slight pump in value, but ultimately it will detract investors because it causes more variance (who knows what the devs/community will want to do next) and it makes Vertcoin less easy to calculate compared to what they’re used to (i.e. the dollar, euro, etc).
Think of it, literally, as a coin. If Vertcoin were an actual coin and each coin were worth over $100, people won’t exactly want to carry it around. For this reason, Bitcoin community members have been discussing creating a denomination of sorts, so they could refer to smaller increments of BTC as something like bits and have each bit worth $0.10-1.00. Your proposal would do the exact opposite and make Vertcoin even more difficult for the layman to comprehend. Minor side-point
One last thing, and this is mostly unrelated (I noticed it during my experimentation): Vertcoin-Qt has an option to view a transaction on VertExplorer, even though VertExplorer isn’t even around anymore. Alternatively, there’s explorer.vertcoin.org, which works fine. Can the devs please change the wallet so that it can reference transactions without having to copy, browse to explorer.vertcoin.org and then paste/search for that transaction? For Those Who Think We Need VertVote:
I ask you this, what did you come here for? Did you like Vertcoin, or did you like the idea of a coin that could be constantly changed on the whim of a couple hundred votes? We all bought into Vertcoin because we liked what it stood for (ASIC-resistance), and the economics of it were sound. Even now, the economics of it are only frowned upon because we see so many PoS coins taking over the market. Nobody's out there suggesting we switch to a PoS model, even though PoS is patently anti-ASIC, ASIC-proof for that matter. The whole point of cryptocurrencies is that they are void of any centralized control. If we leave this coin up to the decisions of those who hold it, we're still centralizing the currency's control to those people in particular. Instead, we should be basing the currency on a constitutional model (by that I mean that there should be absolutes that won't be changed, such as the block reward schedule, total VTC supply, time to block solve, etc). The technical details should only change out of absolute necessity to maintain the requirements laid out in the coin's "constitution". In this case, changing the algorithm makes sense, because it maintains the constitutional requirement of being ASIC-resistant. Changing the block reward is just an idea that people like because they see it as a way to increase the value and ROI of their current holdings, without regard to the fact that it'll scare off practically any conscious investor.
since i was helping keef get his bitcoin mining OP started i though id post something so that if any of you are interested, you can join us. submitted by
bitcoins are basically an anonymous online currency (there are physical forms but thats irrelevant and difficult to explain) im going to quote the wiki article to explain a few things cause im too lazy. "Unlike most currencies, bitcoin does not rely on a central issuer, like a central bank or government. Instead, bitcoin uses a transaction log across a peer-to-peer computer network to record transactions, verify them and prevent double spending. The verification process awards effective bitcoin nodes or "bitcoin miners" with a limited release of bitcoins and transaction fees (if any). This process requires intense computing power, electricity and significant investment as it solves SHA256 hashes through bruteforce to verify transactions and add them to the network's transaction log. Currently, bitcoin is the most widely used alternative currency: As of February 2013, the monetary base of bitcoin is valued at over 275 million US dollars."
so basically bitcoin miners will always be needed. because of the calculations that come from the transfer and exchange of bitcoins. in essence a bitcoin is a large string of data stored on your harddrive. so if your hard drive fries... so does your coins... but the problem is that you cant just make new bitcoins... there is a maximum number that could ever be in existence... so your hard drive crashing hypothetically increases the value of all remaining bitcoins. albeit just slightly.
now as a miner, you have a few different options.... theres pooled mining. and solo mining... solo mining can be quite lucrative if you have the processing power to do so. but for miners with only one computer doing the mining, pooled mining is where its at. (shit gotta get ready for work. ill finish this when im home)
Cpuminer download: https://github.com/pooler/cpuminer/releases As I mentioned in the video, be ready for your antivirus to get upset with this file. This min... If you're looking into starting cryptocurrency mining, you want to make sure that you're making a good profit on your main computer or GPU (graphics card)/CP... Nerva is a great new coin with a very unique twist. The only way to mine this coin is with your CPU. Take a peek and I'll tell you all about it! Website: htt... Newbie guide for those who want to try solo bitcoin and litecoin mining, using bfgminer and cgminer. The config files shown in the video are available in the... bitcoin paypal, bitcoin price gbp, bitcoin price live, bitcoin rate gbp, bitcoin scam, bitcoin server, bitcoin to dollars, bitcoin to usd, bitcoin trade, bitcoin trading, bitcoin trading price ...