crzybilly, Can you elaborate more on that? I'm not really familiar with what the block header issue is?
From reading Fuzzbawls prior posts, was that what he was referring to when he mentioned that both PIVX and MINT have optimization and performance technical roadblocks?



I think we should eventually adopt any feasible improvement from other coins into MINT. It can't hurt, and better privacy sounds like a good one. But all things in due time right? Bottom line, is that almost anything is possible! It is good to not rush to just implement every new coin feature that is currently hot at the moment, give new technology time to get established and bugs worked out first before deciding to implement. Who knows what the next improvement and technology will be out next year that will get all the buzz and hype? There is something to be said for not trying to jump onto every new bandwagon that comes along.

MINT has advantages that other coins like PIVX don't have, such as:
1. Better name (MINT/Mintcoin the best name for a proof of stake coin; I can't think of better, so the potential marketing and branding opportunities are extreme)
2. Faster blocks (30 second blocks)
3. Staking feature is fairer and easier for you to stake with a smaller balance. MINT allows many thousands more people to stake (less centralized design).

As for other improvements and features, I don't see why MINT couldn't eventually adopt them.

MINT is 30 second block time, transactions are fully confirmed and re-spendable again after 2 minutes.

Litecoin is a coin I hold a reserve of. I put most of my long-term savings into MINT for minting, but I think LTC could eventually surpass BTC in marketcap. LTC is at least the same or better than BTC in everyway. I see no reason it shouldn't be at least $50 USD per coin right now.  Especially BTC has problems LTC doesn't have. LTC is much more scalable than BTC and faster. I think LTC is the better coin of the two, and if/when BTC falls, LTC will be there to carry the torch next. The only reason I hold any BTC at all is to trade it a little bit on exchanges because that is what most people seem to want, but it seems completely irrational to me why people still prefer BTC over LTC or MINT. I wish LTC was buyable directly from Coinbase, and other places more easily, because if it was, I would prefer to do my transactions with it instead of BTC; but right now, I am forced to still use BTC, and then covert it into the altcoins I want.
But who am I kidding? This crypto world is the Wild West of the internet and everything is irrational!

You do realize that $360 worth of MINT, gives you $0.05 per day, or 0.00003846 BTC per day. You know how much mining gear you would need to invest in to get that?

Hey,


Cryptopia won't allow MINT withdrawals...


Anyone know what's going on?

Here's a couple good questions:

1) How many transactions per second is the network able to handle/process?
2) How much time does a transaction take to process/confirm/validate?

What Linux distributions are compatible with MINT? Is there an updated list somewhere?

What would it take? It would take a gun to peoples' heads.

You just need experience to learn it. It is not easy to just say because there is many things to consider. Every coin has unique parameters and design. Everyone seems to have their own opinion on what is good, that's why there is so many coins out there. A coin for every option basically. One single coin for everyone to accept is just not possible IMO. Keep in mind how long a coin has existed too. Some are launched very recently and there isn't a good history on them, and haven't played out proving a test of time so be careful. Hundreds of coins have come and gone.

Start with very small amount and learn by doing from your own experiences. That is the best teacher. Develop your own strategy over time that works for you. 

Buy up about 3,320,000,000 MINT and  keep minting it. The dividends from minting it would be worth about .1 BTC per week.

I just stick with Mintcoin. Lot of growth potential not expensive. Fast energy efficient. It's so Mint.

Who can help this guy on reddit with getting his wallet working?
reddit.com/r/MintCoin/comments/5jlqb7/noob_questions_about_the_coin/

Try using an alternative coin like Mintcoin. It's much better.

Mintcoin is a good one. It's a a classic, still going strong almost 3 years old now but fast and allows you to mint your own coins by saving them. For every 20,000,000 Mintcoin you save you make 1,000,000 per year!

I wasn't agreeing with you. I still think it's flawed logic. I was just curious. Are you guys still at the 15% rate? Or are you at 5% yet?

Okay. So when are you making the change? Do you have a date set, or picked out a block number the fork will happen on?

I was just trying to illustrate a point. Could use anything really to price it. For example if you price Bitcoin in terms of ZEIT, it is currently 1 Bitcoin is worth about 113,000,000 zeit, last I checked? Therefore since 1 satoshi is worth more than 1 ZEIT then Bitcoin becomes useless for transactions involving 1 ZEIT or lower transactions of value. My point is that this is a scalability problem Bitcoin has not necessarily a problem with ZEIT.
 It is more of a listing problem with the exchanges more than anything.

All you have to do is get the exchanges to make a 1 to 10 or 1 to 100 or even 1 to 1000 exchange rate.  Basically instead of comparing 1 bitcoin to 1 ZEIT, have them compare 1 to 1000. Then the minimum exchange be like 1  Bitcoin to 1000 ZEIT.  I hope that makes sense to you. Then you can get back to proper Bitcoin trading and Bitcoin markets. It's not that hard to do you just have to get the exchanges to understand and implement the exchange ratio in that way. A ratio that is not 1 to 1, but like 1 to 1000. Anyway, it's just an idea.

By all means don't let me stop you. I will be interested to see how it turns out. I see what you're saying, and I get the point. But I don't think we are dealing with hyperinflation. The percentage is low, but the quantity of coins is high.  There is a difference between price and value. Price is dropping but value maintains right? I think what I see you are trying to do is maintain a certain exchange rate vs Bitcoin. But Bitcoin has so few coins relative to ZEIT or MINT with so many, that is what is causing the push towards a sub satoshi exchange ratio. The real problem IMO is Bitcoin price rising a lot, not ZEIT or MINT. Imagine for a second, if Bitcoin goes to $100,000,000 per coin, then 1 satoshi would be worth $1  and Bitcoin becomes unusable for any transaction under a dollar.  So what we are seeing right now is Bitcoin already becoming useless for transaction at the satoshi level because compared to ZEIT if ZEIT or MINT is sub satoshi, then Bitcoin is useless for valuation. This isn't zeit's or mint's problem it is a flaw and problem with Bitcoin. We must then look to Litecoin or other coins for valuation. I'm not sure trying to keep up with Bitcoin at all times is a good idea. If the price of Bitcoin goes up 10x in next month, and every month, then its unrealistic to keep up with that. You cannot force an exchange rate ratio unless you directly keep on manipulating the coin by adjusting rates or coin counts, you may even need to burn coins to reduce your supply of coins if that is the ultimate goal. Markets are in constant flux. Alternatively, if Bitcoin drops back down to say $50 per coin, then back we'd swing the other way. Kind of hard to know. Like I said, I will be interested to see how things turn out.

The problem I see with just voting and changing your parameters, is that what you are doing is essentially no different than what the fiat money central banks do when they meet and vote on changing their interest rates and parameters. I don't think you should change your coin unless it is an emergency or something like that. Just wanted to say something, maybe give it some thought. The whole point of crypto to me is to have something that is all automatic and eliminating third party risk. I think currencies should be built and let their design play out, for better or for worse. If people invested thinking the coin is going to be one way forever, and it turns out it's not going to happen, you may have some disgruntled people. Hard forking an established coin is a very serious and big deal imo should not ever be done. Imo, by changing your coin you run the risk of the coin losing trust. Because it means ultimately the design failed, so you capitulated and essentially created a new coin. New parameters that was not established from the beginning = new coin. A new coin with pre-established distribution, essentially equates to being a full premine or ICO because the distribution isn't fair for people to find out about the change before any investment happens.   I would be very careful since (correct me if I'm wrong) these changes you are proposing were not part of the original parameter goal and disclosure at the coin's launch and mining phase.  
If you do something like this, how can you say the coin operates without oversight and control by banks or government, when essentially what you'd be doing is the same thing. A small group of people that is governing the coin is a small government but is still a government. Ideally, imo there should be no voting or democracy, it should all be hard coded into the coin and any changes automatic based on code without any human supervision or intervention.

Full disclosure, I currently don't hold any ZEIT, but I respect it.  Things like this make me hold off as well since things seem changeable and up in the air whenever.  Who knows what a coin will really be in 10 years, will it be changed for the better for sure? How do you know?  I highly recommend not changing a coin just to manipulate the market. It might backfire. Just my 2 zeits for ya! Took me some time to write these thoughts.