Quote from: kqpahv on April 11, 2014, 03:52:39 PM

No, I know the math but I was just wondering why you are running your cards so inefficiently

? Even at 21.6Mhash per card I am drawing about ~660W. Low energy costs are one of the main beauty's of this coin Wink

Only requires 0.880mv @ 1000Mhz for me. With fans @ 75% and my cold air intake fan in the garage turned on I am getting temps from 35C - 42C which is damn nice compared 75C-85C mining scrypt Grin

All the more reason to vote low! Lower energy costs = bigger profit margins! This coin has huge potential.

Quote from: Counterpartybtc on April 11, 2014, 04:08:07 PM

I think as a community we need a strong effort to raise awareness and vote down the block rewards, substantially. We should try to extend the mint phase for at least 1 year. I believe this would require a block reward of around 100-150 HVC. This would give the community more time to get the word out about heavycoin and allow HVC to show off its GPU friendly features through those warm summer months. Also, allowing more time for the coin to gain acceptance in marketplaces. And ideally, pick up more value.

I couldn't agree more Wink

Quote from: cayars on April 11, 2014, 11:50:48 AM

Other things that might be worth noting:
One can hope that many of the miners who have dropped or those that will drop when they think it's not profitable will have high vote settings.
By sticking with HVC and using a proper vote count each of us has far more control over the outcome of voting and can help to push the coin voting in the direction best for longer term survivability.

Community solidarity would be great for this coin, and everyone's wallets. Also good to see that the AMD rigs can still turn a profit.

Quote from: reorder on April 11, 2014, 11:45:38 AM

Quote from: TheRealSteve on April 11, 2014, 11:22:15 AM

Quote from: reorder on April 11, 2014, 11:14:01 AM

Technically speaking, the miner is required to set the vote (it is a part of hashed block header), so there is no way a pool could override that.

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that pools override miners' votes, just that they do set a default value in the batch files / scripts they provide, hence the 'dictate' in single quotes

Though hypothetically speaking, I'd imagine it would be possible to reject submissions that disagree with a pool's 'allowed range' of votes. Of course that also means less rewards for the pool to begin with, and miners would quickly realize and change to a different pool so that's even worse for the pool.

The point is, a pool cannot accept 'voteless' shares: these just do not exist, the vote is an integral part of a share or a block. Rejecting votes a pool does not agree with makes no sense indeed. Actually, at first my cgminer fork had the default setting for vote so it could be omitted on the commandline, but I decided to enforce setting it to play by the rules (sort of).

The pools just followed what the default vote was. It makes sense to place it right in the middle. Since this is the first time miners have ever had this power no one could have anticipated the outcome. The willingness of the pools and coders to adjust the default vote is very helpful to the community. We seem to be making progress, as the number of 512 votes seem to be dropping.

Do share your reasons why you vote they way you do, High or low doesn't matter, it's an exclusive feature to HVC! We don't seem to hear much from the 1024 camp. In light of the GPU friendly features I can't find any logic in voting high.