So basically you don't have a better suggestion but you think the choices that were made were wrong?
Yes I am just looking at what is known and how I think it should have been done. The problem for now is that no matter what the solution is going forward, I don't really see a way out. If they cancel the swap now SIGT will tank and confidence will be lost in devs, if they reverse premine or restart coin there are also various implications. Very tough call and I wish the developers and users the best. I will also say the current plan of 6 years is way too ambitious, I think the vast majority can't believe that a small altcoin like this would even last a few years (if not months). On top of that, this coin is so entangled with Signatum, which has such a tragic and shady history that it's simply unbelievable from my perspective.
That looks interesting, I was not aware of it. But there seem to be various limitations, like it only supports nicehash? Seems to have a fee and violates GPL? Also the binaries are missing as you say, and obviously no source available.
If you remove the burn but allow swap to happen, how do you control which coins have been swapped already? For example, if someone swaps their coins and then sells them on an exchange, how is the buyer supposed to know they have been swapped already? What if someone finds a way to re-swap them? Burning after swap is really the best solution.
That's a good point, but of course the simple solution would be to hold the coin during swap and return after swap is complete. Or the most simple solution would be a 1:1 fork, if you wanted to simply continue SIGT.
If there's no premine, no ICO and no dev fees then how are the devs supposed to be paid? You do realize the devs can't mine anything if there's several hundreds of GH/s being thrown at the coin right from the start, like was the case with Straks?
That's a valid point as well, but I feel confidence of the community would have been much higher if there was no premine or fees. But I already answered this question, if the devs really thought this coin was worth it they could use their own funds to buy it early or invest in early mining. The entire point of any coin is that value is supposed to increase with time, if devs don't see this happening then it seems like another pump and dump situation. Also keep in mind that the reason originally why SIGT gained some popularity is due to the fact that there were no fees, ICO or premine.
The hash rate seems to be very volatile at the moment but on average it's higher today than yesterday.
Well i don't know about that, I was testing mining around this time and it was at least 100Mh/s and now it's 85Mh/s so seems a bit lower.
-----------------------
Now here is a question for you
Chromexnet. Do you actually believe that the current plan will work out? What suggestions are you willing to propose? Because as you can tell there are quite a few people voicing their opinion right now and it's not looking good. Do you really believe this coin will succeed with the current plans in motion?
Furthermore I just want to say, I am not a big holder of any coins, and have never invested any major amount into anything. I just love to experiment with mining on my computers. So I was never burned by SIGT, but I found it interesting and certainly some of the early hype was exciting. I was able to mine several hundred SIGT, mostly just to test things out & it was never worth much even at the very height. So my perspective is outside devs, bag holders, speculators/investors, etc. I'm just trying to figure things out and to see what the best solution moving forward, as I was interested in the continuation of SIGT community after everyone was so badly treated. A lot of opinion is clouded by people having certain investments, just wanted to point out this is not the case for me.
Fair enough, I do agree on most points you make. It's a pleasure to have a civilized conversation for a change. It seems to many people in this thread are just trolling hard.
As for your question, I really can't say what will happen. I do have trust on the devs and I think they are doing a good job in a tough situation. As far as I can see they have been honest and it's just bad timing (and bad luck) on certain announcements that have got them into trouble. It's not easy to please both parties; Straks miners and Sigt holders at the same time. But since both parties are now complaining I guess it means the devs have the balance sort of right.
Whether the coin lives or not, I think that really depends on the community. Even if the devs do a great job, if the community drops the support and the coin value tanks then obviously there's no incentive to keep developing further. That's why I'd hope there would be more constructive discussion here on how the coin should be developed in the future. Moaning about the swap details, or accusing devs of pump and dump (which there isn't any proof of) isn't really helping in anything. Btw, I'm not referring to you relayd but some others in this thread.
