Have never been a fan of "changing the rules of the game". It has happened once already for CSC and was not happy about it then. I feel any crypto that "changes the rules" looses credibility. Imagine if BTC decided to change the reward structure or coin supply? Let's be honest...what is being proposed is simply just a means of currency manipulation.

Other stuff like diff adjustments, algo, AuxPOW, POS, etc. are bearable but to a lot of people are still bad form.

Oh well, just stating my peace....and trying to provide some level of guidance.  

Do as you wish  

....and will it really be a consensus decision? Who will vote? The miners you are trying to penalize? No, I imagine if this change is done people will try to force everyone to "upgrade" to the new version regardless of how the miners vote with their hash. All you have to do is convince enough key people to "upgrade" and to hell with consensus.  

Definitely. I wouldn't do it without a good debate first for any such changes. In six months maybe the situation changes and it may not be necessary. We will have to see later on down the road.

Gc said he has everything in place. They are just waiting for a 3rd party to give the go ahead to turn in on.

Discussion is needed indeed on this issue. I have a feeling the third parties will also want a say in this, especially if they are going to use the coin in their casinos/sites etc. Not really sure what road to support. POS would make it non reliant on miners but would also keep on increasing the supply, not sure if it is something that the companies want. POW might be the way to continue, once the coins price goes up it should balance itself out, at least that is the hope.

Cartman you've been around since day one and understand that people like you, myself, goldseal, ajochems (not trying to leave anyone out) are the ones who not only have a large stake but have invested a lot of time into casinocoin and now sandcoins. Ultimately what I was trying to get at is there wouldn't be a "vote" to propose a large change like reducing the supply again as it should never be one or a few persons decision!


I agree we shouldn't touch the coin supply again, but your proposal seems like something that we need to look into. I remember we talked about merged mining and it was not something many we're pleased with.
Would adding smart contracts to the blockchain, enticing more services to use CSC and giving us the ability to form the foundation wallet you mentioned be a viable option ?

This is a very hard problem to solve unless there was some sort of escrow that existed between casinocoin and the services. BUT this would mean someone is in control as a middleman and that defeats the purpose. The benefit of casinocoin and the blockchain is the ability to track your transactions with record of them in multiple places. You should be able to Deposit, and then withdraw your Casinocoin within a matter of seconds, and this gives you the ability to move from service to service instead of waiting several days for a Casino website to send your credit card or bank account transaction off to a third party and then relay it back to your card/bank.

I don't know how we got into the subject of dilution, but there is no need to change the number of coins produced. It's really about sacrificing some hashing power to slow down the rate at which new coins are produced.  This could give us a nice long tail to reward miners for a number of years and delay the transaction fee problem. We probably should have dropped it lower than 10 the last time we lowered it from 50.

you can add http://sand.blockexp.info/ to the list of explorers on the OP

Good stuff guys...thank you for taking the time to outline our options. Sorry if my other post came of as being flippant. That was not my intent.
Two examples to look at are Dogecoin and Potcoin. Doge, as most of you may know, successfully transitioned to AuxPOW while POT went with POS Velocity.

I believe Doge went to AuxPOW because they felt it was necessary to have massive hash to secure the blockchain. Especially since the mining reward was essentially going away and perhaps the fees would not be enough to keep miners. I at first thought it was odd that they wanted more hash since they had what I felt was a lot to begin with but they now have as much if not more than LTC. There is essentially no chance of 50%ing their blockchain.

I have seen arguments against AuxPOW since miners get it "for free" and are more inclined to sell it right away since they have no invested interest.

vPOS (think this is what it's called...Proof of Share Velocity) seems to be the latest flavor of POS. It rewards people who keep the full wallet open and running. Perhaps we can modify that to include wallets running with incoming connections open? I really have not done much research into POS. I did modify and release a version of the POT wallet that decreased the split threshold to produce shares more often. Have thought about making it a user selectable setting. vPOS seems to be working "ok" for POT although I haven't really looked into it too deeply.

I keep thinking though that rather than discussing major changes such as these perhaps we should be concentrating on updating the wallet with the latest code revisions from BTC/LTC? Have been throwing around the idea of doing it myself but the time and effort is really too great. Was going to call it CasinoCoin Core or something along those lines.

Honestly, I do not care for POS. I own a lot of sprouts and the whole thing just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

POW right now seems to be the most reliable and mature method, but on a side note I must say that I'm not terribly happy about the complete lack of decent mining hardware options in the scrypt asic area. One way to compensate for a loss in hashrate if the block reward is reduced is to maybe think about moving from scrypt to sha256. This would open us up to a large amount of hashing capacity and we could attract a larger community of miners who may very well welcome another coin option to mine.