Quote from: Killiz on June 10, 2019, 10:24:28 AM

Quote from: ClashProject on June 10, 2019, 09:52:44 AM

Quote from: Killiz on June 10, 2019, 09:11:35 AM

Quote from: ClashProject on June 09, 2019, 08:25:22 PM

Quote from: Killiz on June 09, 2019, 06:13:30 PM

The upper number of coins is not important. Just that the last 2 digits are 100th of a full unit, like most currencies.

100 x mXYX = 1XYZ

Not like bitcoin which is:

10000000 x 1 satoshi = 1 bitcoin

For example bitcoin is 000000.00000000

My proposal is 000000000.00

The last two digits being a 100th of an Aptum

I dont understand.
mXYZ is milli-XYZ -> thousandths.

I know what you mean by "using two digets - not three - not none - two".
The issue is that the emission in atomic units is set right now.
So we emit one million atomic units, and the question is - where to put the digets.
If you want to have two digets, we could either use the same design as before, and emit 10k coins - or we reduce it to 1k.
Reducing it to 1k would make us use a more beautiful number and have 10x smaller emission.
Staying at 10k would have an emission of 22 billion whole coins per year.

Ok then cXYZ

I'm not clever enough to comment on the emissions, but if I had the choice, I wouldn't want them to be pig ugly

Perfect! So you would recommend an emission of 1000 coins per block and the usage of two digets if I understand correctly?
My proposal would be the same thing, but three digets, to allow for higher accuracy (if needed).

Yes, 1000 sounds good. If it is possible to use 2 digits I'd go for that, as most are familiar with using currencies like this.
I'm unsure if there are any other cryptos that only use 2 decimals out there? Maybe Aptum would be the first.

It is possible to use two digits, yes - on the other hand - without changing much, other than adding another digit - we could also use three digits.
The most famous cryptocurreny I know that uses two digits is turtlecoin (#500 on coingecko).

Pro two digits: They would allow for a 10x higher (theoretical) maximum supply (184 trillion).
Con two digits (in contrast to 3): Since it would take already take over 9000 years to reach the supply, we don't need to make that 90'000 (assuming maximum emission).

Quote from: optap on June 10, 2019, 10:09:41 AM

Hello,
Do You have the bounty?

That depends, as of right now, there is no marketing campaign set up implying that there is no bounty right now.
However we will shortly, or more precise: within the next two months, release a website. With the release of that site the marketing can officially start, including possible bounties.

Other than that, there is only one thing that is fixed. A faucet that can be used to redeem funds. This will be similar to what Nano (previously RaiBlocks) did. See here: https://medium.com/@DecentRally/raiblocks-is-what-bitcoin-should-have-been-from-the-start-1d91c4c61d2d
This allows us to distribute coins fairly without giving them away for free.