Quote from: incin on April 13, 2014, 04:50:46 PM

Quote from: Wenzel745 on April 13, 2014, 04:15:41 PM

If we send miners off to a multipool, we become open for an attack.

Not saying i support a multipool right now but I see no more risk than what will be presented in the sustain phase, in fact less risk now than later.

Quote from: Wenzel745 on April 13, 2014, 04:15:41 PM

How about we do, as KrazyKrypto is getting at, some community outreach and look at making some REAL WORLD APPLICATIONS. A community looking only for profit isn't going anywhere.

Agreed. But....

The current concern is that sustain phase is coming very quickly and in the current design sustain is very open to network attack if people bail during said phase (granted speculation). But for people not to bail HVC has to increase in value considerable to keep miners mining (securing the network). It is naive to think miners will mine at a loss just to support the coin during the sustain phase. Im not suggesting things be changed immediately but I do think a plan has to be made and ready to be implemented if the scenario plays out as such. Who will invest jump on board (merchants) with HVC if there is a logical foreseeable security issue with the final stage?

BTW a multipool would be good if HVC went POS for sustain phase. Grin

I agree, we need to go PoS for sustain if we want to be relevant. All I'm saying is that if we start a multipool, we significantly damage the hashrate of the HVC network. Not to mention, every coin is looking at starting multipools... Maybe the Altpocalypse is starting? Death by multipools?

What I'm getting at is, at least as long as we're PoW, the best way to up the price is to get wider adoption and lower the vote. If we can convince Kekkak to make final phase PoS then certainly, we should get a multipool then.