Nice work on the transition.  The update was clean, simple, and fast.  I look forward to a long span of network stability and the core improvements that are to follow.

Yeah, they have basically stated that he was removed from the github.  Which doesn't matter much since he never contributed anyways.  He still seems to be a moderator on their social media. As far as going forward, Rhett doesn't matter too much.  He's already done his pump and dump, removed his lines of code, and has been quiet.

Jake on the other hand, is always actively pissing off exchanges, investors, and others and making the coin look like it's ran by children.  They really need to completely get rid of both of these liabilities to be taken seriously by exchanges and investors.  If they had someone with experience in the crypto business with good connections, that knew how to build bridges and make deals, this coin could do very well.  Jake will just continue being Jake and driving opportunity away with his arrogant and controlling way of doing things.  This is much worse than Rhett sitting quietly on the sidelines enjoying his pump and dump money.

I used to think this. But honestly, seeing them toss out Rhett shows that there might be a few members on the team that 'get it' and can lead them forward. 

I just hope they don't wait too much longer to show Jake the door.  His only skill seems to be pissing off exchanges, investors and others.  They need to get someone in there that can BUILD bridges, not destroy them.  I would invest heavily if or when, they finally take this next obvious move.  Major exchanges would reconsider listing this coin once these two liabilities were removed and investors would soon follow.

The team is everything, either a big liability or a big advantage.  It doesn't work to have some working hard, while others just drive people away and make it look like the coin is ran by children and scammers.

Tossing out Rhett was a smart move.  I'm surprised they did it.  But to be honest, I'm impressed.

Next step is to toss Jake/CryptoJake/Jacob Brutman/Jake the snake/  on his butt.

If they get rid of both those liabilities, this coin could have a future.  They need to get rid of them, and then make sure the whole crypto community knows that they have bee removed from the project.  Once this happens, investors will return and exchanges will consider working with BTCP.

It's normal.  You need to sweep your btc private keys into a btcp wallet, otherwise these coins don't exist and will not be on the btcp blockchain.

First step is to move your existing btc to a new wallet/address.  This is for safety.  Then if you made a mistake and downloaded a scam btcp wallet or the developers were crooked, your btc would still be safely residing at the new address.  Always move your btc first before claiming/sweeping any forked coins.  You never want to use private keys that still hold coins.

Then you sweep your private keys into your new btcp wallet and they will be put on the btcp blockchain. 

Liquidity.

Yes, you are correct. Anyone can open an account in about 10 minutes.  It's fine for smaller investors.  No problem buying/selling 100 coins or less.  But the medium to large players cannot touch this coin.  There is not enough liquidity.  It will never have the same liquidity as coins with a large circulating supply, but larger exchanges will definitely help.

One of important things to understand about this coin is that the float is extremely small.  The devs lied and claim the circulating supply is over 20+ million coins right now, but it's not.  It's much lower, likely not even half that much.  But even if it were possible to have 20+ million coins in circulation right now, that is still a small number.

What this means is that the price can be easily moved.  When there is a little bit of solid buy pressure, it will fly and it will fall just as fast with some panic selling as well.  So when panic or fomo hit, the price is easily moved.  There are simply not enough coins in circulation (or big enough exchanges) to absorb heavy pressure.  

It's also important to realize that eventually it may get on a decent exchange and the larger bitcoin holder might start sweeping more btcp into circulation.  There is a potentially large supply that could still be dumped on the market.  As long as the price remains low and the coin is only tradeable on small scammy exchanges, these bigger players will not likely bother.  But it could be a factor in the future.  Right now, medium to large players simply can't do much.  There is not enough liquidity on TS or Nanex.

Then of course, the biggie;  the dev team.  

Yeah, they both seem to have abandoned this announcement thread and it's not even been 2 months since the fork.  It's amazing how people can worship devs like some of these btcp bagholders do.  Jake the snake and Rhettconnect  don't even participate in their own announcement thread, yet the lemmings still follow them off the cliff like they are messiahs or something.  Pretty entertaining to watch, but it's sad to see newbies lose their money to these fraudsters.

What is this "the best privacy tech in the world" nonsense?  What tech does this coin have that  other coins don't?  Heck the copy/paste job of stealing Z tech isn't even an option in Electrum wallets, nor is it the default mode for transactions.  How is this the best privacy tech in the world?

Who are these eggspurts?

Stick to the truth.  Seasoned crptyo investors can see right through your lies, but newbies can't.  Rhett and Jake have already scammed enough money from newbies don't help them take more.


I get that you bought it and want it to rise, but stick to facts with your shilling.

haha,  a little baby minnow could move the price.  Whales can't even buy this coin.

Good.  Let's hope the network remains stable until the change takes place.  Then you guys can work on the road map instead of fighting to defend the chain against miners and concentrated hash power.  Much better use of your time and energy in my opinion.

Just some for clarification and a much needed dose of reality, this coin is not up 100% by any stretch of the imagination. It's still way way way down from what it was just a few short weeks ago and even further down from what ZCL was.

It's just sad to watch clueless fanboys dance around like they are Warren Buffet or something when they are still down by a very large margin.

It was a nice pop. No surprise. This is how coins with extremely low circulating supplies move when there is a little buy pressure.  The volume was relatively low when compared to other coins in the top 50.  It doesn't take much to move a coin with such a small float.  This is both good and bad depending on the direction it's heading.  I hope some people made back a small portion of their losses.

I would highly recommend saving your victory dance until this coin has at least reached a price that brings it back up to break even or profit for all the victims of Rhett and Jake's zcl pump and dump, and the bTCP dump that took place weeks ago.  Heck, this coin isn't even back to the  .005 or .006 range.  Talk to me when this coin is at least $200+/coin.

Haha...  Maybe no need to take it to the extreme.     For now, bitcoin is doing fine on POW, as are many other coins.

But honestly, I do fully believe that mining is going to be the Achilles heel of crypto going forward, as Moores law and the advancement of hardware technology remain a constant challenge.  The goal posts are constantly changing and no tech is future proof.  There is a very large financial incentive for people to exploit and take advantage of systems built for older tech/hardware with their newer, faster, more efficient machines. The time from concept to completion will also continue to drop as they move  beyond the limitations of ASIC's and combine technologies that can be modified or programmed as needed.  The cost of doing so will also continue to drop.

 Miners don't provide a service by selling. That is a dis-service.  It's also not important since there will be still sellers without miners.  The less sellers, the better.  Price in free markets is always set by supply and demand.  Less sellers (less supply) will eventually take the price higher unless demand is non-existent.  We don't want sellers, that's the opposite of what is needed.   If there weren't so many people dumping into the bids, and instead, refusing to sell, the price would rise.

Then when the miners all jump in one pool/group or superior hardware such as fpga's concentrates the hash power, then we see unintended or malicious forks.  As these forks keep happening, investors lose faith in the dev's ability to keep the network stable and teh price dumps even more.

None of this would be an issue with POS.

I gotta admit, it's been a decent recovery from the early days.  I was skeptical of this airdrop, but it seems to have worked out well.  A bit sad to see it go.

1.  Free publicity to bring more miners.  Not investors, not buyers. Miners/Sellers don't invest their $$$ in a way that helps the coin.    Their money goes to hardware vendors and electric companies.  Then they sell/dump on the exchanges.  We don't need this kind of publicity.  Compare this to MN owners and Stakers, they are incentivized to first BUY, and take coins off the market and hold them.  They help the community and other investors by stabilizing the price.  The miners just mine and dump.

2.  Far far more risk in buying mining hardware and setting up, than simply buying the coin and staking/MN.

3.  See #1.   What kind of  "community" are you looking to build?  The "community" that only takes?  That switches from coin to coin with lightening speed chasing profits, and then dumping those coins on the market and often straight into the bids?  That's not community.  Those are not loyal holders and buyers.

Sure there are a very very small number of miners that do end up buying and holding bwk and are great to have in the community. No doubt about it.  But they are a small  minority in the greater sea of miners.  Most don't care one bit about the coins they profit from, or the long term future and health of the network.  For example: If they can all pile into one pool to make more money, they do it, regardless of the consequences for the network.

All good points.  Things have certainly changed, and the changes continue to accelerate.  Now there really is no need for POW on the BWK chain, but as you said, miners played a major role just a few short years ago and they still do today for many coins.

I see another unintended fork as highly likely as long as POW remains.  Especially with the superior hardware we see hitting the blockchains today.  People are fooling themselves if they believe that fpga isn't going to adapt to whatever algo the devs choose.  Once this happens, we're back in the same boat with superior hardware concentrating the hash power and forking the coin.

There's really no upside to continuing POW. Only downsides, lower prices, and malicious or unintended forks.

You should care.  It's not going to the moon as long as the miners are still forking it and dumping the price.  Back when there were only 100 masternodes and the ROI was super high, there were plenty of new MN buyers to offset the constant dumping from miners.  Now with over 800 MN's on the wire, and terrible ROI, there aren't enough buyers to counter-balance the dumping.  Then each time the miners fork this coin, the price dumps even more.  It's in the death spiral.  One more un-intended fork and long repair and recovery process, and this coin will be trading for less than 100 Satoshis. 

On the other hand, if they switched to POS things would be different.  People would be encouraged and incentivized to buy more coins on the exchanges and to hold them.  There would be no more miners dumping, and the price would rise. 

It's real simple.  The price is set on the exchanges.  Miner's only interaction with exchanges is to dump.  They pay for their coins through hardware vendors and electric companies.  They don't support the price, they depress the price.  POS and MN owners on the other hand, first BUY coins on the exchange and drive prices up.  There is a big difference between these two.   Then you add in the unintended forks and it's a no-brainer.  One group supports the price, while the other dumps it and forks the chain.

The real supporters have been the long term investors and MN owners.   Miners just mine and dump whatever coin they can make the most profit on at the moment without a care for what damage is done.  It's unfortunate to see the dev's inability to see and understand these factors.

Now is a perfect opportunity to do what is right for the long term success of this coin,  or pander to the miners and ignore the effects.

Well it looks like you have already decided to pander to the miners and disregard the obvious risk to the stability of the network.  I guess we can just plan on more unintended forks, lost coins, long outages while waiting for sporks/updates or other fixes, and long waits for exchanges to get updates and get on the correct chain.  We obviously think differently.  If it was me, and my coin was becoming a serial forker and there was an obvious and easy solution like POS, then it would have already been done.

If it happens once, people might have some patience.  But now it's happened twice, and you've made it clear that you have no interest in putting a definite stop to it. You are also willfully ignoring how a group with superior hardware can quickly take over the majority of the hash and cause problems.


It's your coin though and you're going to do what you want regardless of what the bigger investors or community wants.  Might as well not even have the vote, it was nothing more than a PR stunt to fool people into believing it was a community project.

The hash being controlled/dominated by a small group is absolutely related.  I would even bet that this last major issue with the blockchain was directly related.  How soon we forget.  It was like 20-30 days ago. 

The miners have created enough problems.  They have also made more than enough money while wreaking havoc on the stability of this coin.  What's with the pandering to the miners?

So you switch to a different algo. Then after a few weeks or a month, the hash power once again moves to one group, and we see another unintended fork..

How many times does this have to happen before you switch to POS and stop it once and for all?