OK, I uploaded my changes to my github repo
https://github.com/panopolis/Blakecoin/commits/master

Instead of using the util2.h as i previously mentioned, I took the time to replace "loop" with "while (true)". I did not test this on Windows/Mac, only Linux. Some of the edits to makefile/ qt.pro files may be Linux specific, I'm not sure. There is still the issue where make complains that there is no rule for leveldb, currently you have to run "chmod +x build_detect_platform" and then run make in the leveldb folder, and then copy the resulting *.a files from a sub directory to main leveldb directory. I'm not sure how to fix that so its automated, its not a huge inconvenience but might confuse other people trying to compile it. Hope this helps BD 

I would suggest making it merge mined with monero if possible. This wound help a lot with security and adoption.

I think it would have been best if the xspec community could have stayed as one, but there are legitimate arguments for both sides (xspec/wisp). It would seem the split was unavoidable, but what matters is how things go moving forward. My hope is that the xspec and wisp communities will coexist peacefully, and share whenever possible. There are already too many trolls stirring chaos in the larger cryptosphere. Let's remember that although people may disagree on technical or philosophical issues, we all seek a common goal of making cryptocurrency the revolution of our era.

This may still be the beginning of difficulty increase. If blakecoin continues to gain attention, and the Baikal asics are made to work correctly, the difficulty could be 100x by end of year. Keep mining and hold, even if it seems not worth it now it will be later.

Just an idea for those on (currently) unsupported OS, you could install windows in a virtual machine and install your wallet there. Not ideal, but for some people it may be an easier option than trying to compile from source.

Dp-unique, I meant it would be nice if the payout threshold was configurable by the user, instead of a fixed amount for all miners. Not a big deal though, I just don't like getting a ton of tiny payouts. I think 1sumo is a good minimum, 2 is also OK. At least for now; when the net hash rate goes up to 10 megahash, then 0.5sumo payout may be more appropriate. The goal I think is to have the average miner receive about one payout per day. These are just my opinion, but seems to be how most pools handle it. Hope that helps, good luck with your pool

Forget which one(s) but I tried a pool that had no minimum, it was sending payouts of 0.05 or less! It would be nice to have option like you said, because I understand some people may have very low or very high hash rate

Here's a thought for sumokoin pool operators, increase minimum payout threshold to 1 or 2 sumo. I see some pools will payout in amounts less than 1 sumo, this causes block chain bloat. Maybe when net hashrate is much higher it will make sense for smaller payouts, but for now it is just generating a large number of small tx, which will cause large database size.

Relax guys, neither aeon or sumo are scams. Both have + and - aspects, both are good and hold promise. We should be collaborating not fighting, this is what open source is about. For example, aeon could benefit by porting the sumo GUI wallet, and sumo could potentially implement the blockchain pruning code from aeon. No reason to flame each other.

I have to agree that having "coin" in the name is cumbersome, and overplayed. Its not a big deal, but I would support it if the devs and community decide to change the name to just Spectre. Like others have said, I too was sceptical of this coin at first, but in recent months it has grown much more promising. Best of luck guys, look forward to seeing how this coin turns out in a year+.

@Billaue, it would be great if you guys could make this happen. Merge mining has many benefits, and few downsides. I can go into detail if you are unfamiliar with the topic. There was a cryptonote coin called fantomcoin that had merge mining support, not sure if that would still be a useful reference though since its abandoned. Even if its not possible to merge mine with monero, perhaps Sumokoin could be a parent chain for other coins to merge with. Just brainstorming but I think sunk818 made a good suggestion

Why is everyone assuming its a bot-net? Is there any proof? It could just be a that there are some people are solo mining instead of using pools. Difficulty is low enough that a single GPU could find a block every 1-3 days (rough estimate), which may be worth it to save ~1% from pool fees. Another possibility is there are some pools that haven't been made public.

Sammy007 I agree compiling from source is best. Billaue post does say the source will be available soon, I recommend checking back soon. Here is their github link:

https://github.com/sumoprojects

The easy miner is in beta so they probably want to polish up the code before releasing it

Srqrebel, I believe you are correct. For anyone trying to stake with a smaller amount, I'd suggest making sure all your coins are in a single UTXO. For example if u buy 100 xspec, withdraw it to your wallet, and then buy and withdraw another 100 xspec, your wallet will consist of 2 unspent transactions (UTXO). In this case, send all the coins to yourself, now they are all in 1 UTXO. Statistically, it shouldn't make a difference in the long term, but having a higher staking weight seems to give rewards on a more consistent basis, instead of varying randomly. The amount you earn is the same, just less variability in when staking occurs. This is just my observation, I may be wrong.

To clarify, I'm pretty sure when you enter your password and check the staking only option, it still requires you to enter the password again to send a tx. So coins can't be stolen that way. However I'm curious if the staking keeps the private key in RAM, if so then it is vulnerable to hacking/virus, and ram dump if attacker has physical access. Anyone know if key is kept in RAM during staking?

Reasons I like Sumokoin:
1) No ICO! Not a fan of premines either, but is better than ICO. I see ICO as a money grab and catering to traders instead of focusing on development and proving/earning the coins worth thru solid development. At least with premine the devs still have to work to make those coins worth something. Also late adopters have a fair chance to obtain sumo thru mining for many years.

2) High level of privacy from the beginning with ring size of 12. Monero is great but the fact that the transactions prior to 2017 aren't really private is not ideal. Also xmr has a low minimum ring size (I believe ring size 0 is still allowed, which is definitely not ideal). Higher ring size reduces the effectiveness of Sybil attacks.

3) Devs do not hype or make unrealistic claims about the coin, but instead they have shown they are more concerned with steady quality development.

4) Despite the large amount of hash rate that is either a private mining farm or botnet, it is still possible for the average person to mine a reasonable amount with 1 or 2 GPU/ CPU. Also cryptonight isn't brutally stressful on my GPU, unlike many other algorithms.

5) Great community so far, the thread is not full of "to the moon" BS or trolls. Everyone here seems genuinely interested to see how development will progress.

I agree people should have an honest understanding of the coins history, including initial distribution. No one is trying to hide the facts. It may make some people uncomfortable to invest, but unfortunately it is not easy to have a completely "fair" distribution. ICO, PoW, airdrop etc all have their drawbacks. Even with "fair" distribution, whales can later accumulate large percentage of coin supply from trading on exchanges. This is unavoidable in a free market, but I feel that the benefits of having a free market outweigh the downsides. Others are free to disagree. Personally my only gripe with Spectrecoins ICO is that I didn't hear about it in time

Thanks for the quick replay gandalf, glad to hear its already under consideration. I wasn't thinking about staking with ring signatures, that would be awesome! Maybe to start, jbg could leave staking as it is, but make ring sig the default tx mode. That would cause ppl to have to move their coins to their public address before being able to stake, so not ideal but a first step. Just an idea, I'm not fluent in c++ but know enough to realise "simple" things are rarely actually simple.

Congrats on raising dev funds, am excited to see where this will lead. I agree xspec has much potential

I have one suggestion that I think would make a huge difference even though its fairly simple. As gandolf pointed out on the last page, spectre supports public and private transactions. However, wouldn't it make sense to have private transactions be the default? Especially since you are pitching it as privacy coin? Some noobs may not realize they have to choose to make it private. Also, the more tx that are done using private ring signatures will increase the overall anonymity set that new txs can use for their ring signatures. In other words, for best results privacy tx should be the default and public tx should be optional, requiring the user to explicitly choose to make it a public tx. Also if we want exchanges to use private tx (which they should IMO), making it the default tx type is probably the only way to get them to do so. Any thoughts?

Good time to mine/buy more