Quote from: lobo13hf on December 04, 2014, 01:24:57 PM

Quote from: Grgechkapitalac on December 04, 2014, 12:53:11 PM

Quote from: kopam on December 04, 2014, 11:14:56 AM

Just to trow in an idea to Griffth and the team.

In the past Super got some bad reputation from Poloniex, i would say that both sides had its part in that. But now there is a new dev team and some great support. Things are going great and i would say that having Poloniex can only be beneficial for Supercoin.

So if the new team can contact them and start talks on getting Super back to Poloniex would be great.

Would be great if all members of the community give an opinion on that. But mine is that we should do that, as it can be only positive for the coin !

That was one of the oldest suggestions that was not accepted before.

It can only help the coin, since when you use google searching for "supercoin", one of the first hits is "Poloniex rejected Supercoin", and that causes fear, uncertainty and doubt. It would be good to end that ugly story once and for all. IMHO that would boost Supercoin more than reviews in less-known blogs and sites.

Heres why so Griffth is this true? if so can this be fix?

Quote from: busoni on June 14, 2014, 08:20:32 PM

attention to this part of the ANN post:

Quote

- Total PoW coins will be 18.2 millions.
- Total coins (including PoS) will be about 50,000,000.

And these parts of the source code:

Code:

if (dAmount <= 0.0 || dAmount > 150000000.0)

Code:

static const int64_t MAX_MONEY = 150000000 * COIN;
static const int64_t POW_MAX_MONEY = 50000000 * COIN;

MAX_MONEY is pretty much what it sounds like. This means that the actual maximum supply of SuperCoin is 150 million, not 50 million. Furthermore, the maximum PoW coins is 50 million, rather than the claimed 18.2 million. The 150 million number appears twice in the code, so it can hardly be considered an accident.

We did not find evidence of an existing hidden premine, but extra coins could potentially be minted all at once at the end of the PoW phase, sent to exchanges via the "anon" feature, and dumped.

We have other concerns about the coin, particularly concerning the proposed method of anonymity, but the shenanigans with the maximum supply is sufficient for us to reject this coin.

Not sure where this comes from, but looking at the source code on GitHub I see the following.

if (dAmount <= 0.0 || dAmount > 50000000.0)
101 throw JSONRPCError(RPC_TYPE_ERROR, "Invalid amount");

from main.h
static const int64_t MAX_MONEY = 50000000 * COIN;

next to that MAX_MONEY is not about the maximum amount of coins afaik..