Would you share some info behind this. Is the coins going to be duplicated on this fork, or are they sort of "transfered" here? What is the stance from exchanges cryptopia and coinexchange for this fork? How is reward structure altered?

I understand where you are coming from. First of all I am a regular person with no company or huge investors behind me. I come from a poor place and have managed to build up more and more equipment as time goes by. I would like to say it's none of your business what equipment I own but to make it clear I have invested €10k+ of my personal money to continue supporting the miningpart of cryptocurrency that I supported back when bitcoin was launched and Folding@Home was released. The earning-money-part is just a bonus for me that keeps me going, but I dedicate my computer power to projects where I believe it's deserved.

The 700H/s I quoted was my day-to-day hashpower for N=19. I also have overheadpower that I play around with for other projects aswell. In total I have a number of kH/s in N=19 but I am waiting for the new developments to take place before I devote more power to CACHeCoin in particular. At N=18 I tested my total hashrate once (!) and reached 15kH/s at one of the known public pools.

I still act like when I started mining with the difference that I can make a living out of it these days. I think that your attitude is not a succesful one since this is all coming down to one thing: building a community, togetherness and all coming to concensus. A split up community will always fail, especially against the big powers out there - media and governments, trying to split us up as much as possible. Hence greed may very well be the end of crypto. Let's not wish for that to happen.

Take a minute to consider that I don't calculate my returns, I'm not here for the money but It has totally enabled me to invest more time and money while enjoying the evolving space of crypto. But I refuse to call it currency. This is something better than that.

Finally I admire you're mining efforts using equipment that is considered as "older" but it is Not true that 1080ti cant touch it. The lowered hashrate is for everybody, and everybody who have read into what scrypt-jane is about knows that the difficulty will rise at a pre-determined rate. I don't make any more coins now than before, unless you decide to stop mining - I will get part of your share aswell.

The Nfactor has changed to 19, which is determined from the beginning of CACHeCoin. From my findings you will now have MORE impact on mining with only a CPU (i7700k@28h/s) versus a GPU (1060/6GB@38h/s,1070@48h/s,1080ti@65h/s).
Because memory is the limiting factor mining CACH we are now hoping for Nvidia and AMD to release 16-24GB versions of their upcoming top-of-the-line GPUs this year, as predicted beforehand. Until then I am happy to put my CPU to work again.

I saw someone question his hashpower being more than the total nethash. This coin has Proof-of-Stake that comes into play more or less throughout the month - this is not calculated into the total nethash. If difficulty is high for mining it becomes more likely that Proof-of-Stakes are taking place, hence not many Proof-of-Work blocks are generated at that specific time. Mining difficulty decreases if there are no Proof-of-Work blocks found for an amount of time, like 12 hours or so. That evens it out over time and you will see a "sudden" bump in total nethash. I have almost 700H/s mining at all times and I remember last year we had total nethashes above 30kH/s at times!


POOL POOL POOL POOL
I was thinking about setting up a pool to enable people to get more even payouts, but since I'm not very good with linux I failed. The stratum setup tried to mine the Proof-of-Stake instead of the Proof-of-Work which I couldn't find a way to solve. I am instead solo-mining to the wallet myself. If anybody has figured out how to setup a stratumpool for mining (that doesn't try to solve the Proof-of-Stake side of the coin!!) feel free to contact me and I will reconsider setting it up to be run 24/7 on my VPS in Europe. I find 2-8 blocks per day myself and I think we could all benefit from gathering up to some degree.

Pretty spot on. Since we are halfway to the point where we would even consider selling i think the reward outweighs the risk of this project going to total zero so why would anyone sell at 22000 satoshi. It's like looking for good value food in a new restaurant by paying yours + some unknown persons food in order to find out. LOL

Since you are based in Sweden where the tax agency has 100% insight in customer lists, transactions and all linked wallet addresses by law I wonder how you will respond to them when they knock on your door?

I got interested in what is going on. I had fully updated wallet, 32 connections to network and this is what was sent to me from a source that just started downloading the blockchain from startheight ~22000 (i did not write it down, doesnt matter). Same time about 64 blocks was orphaned and later found as PoS. This happend a week ago. Using Wireshark to analyze, decoding packet data to "bitcoin". At the time there was multiple IP's resyncing whole blockchain, keeping peers occupied I guess.


Decoded using "Bitcoin" option in Wireshark.
Internet Protocol Version 4, Src: 36.77.134.15, Src Port: 61776

No.       Time                      Source                  Destination           Protocol Length Info
   6429 06:27:38,411941    36.77.134.15          192.168.1.1          TCP      66     [TCP Dup ACK 6423#1] 61776 → 2225 [ACK] Seq=15918 Ack=218112 Win=811 Len=0 SLE=219314 SRE=220638
   6430 06:27:38,670892    36.77.134.15          192.168.1.1          TCP      66     [TCP Dup ACK 6423#2] 61776 → 2225 [ACK] Seq=15918 Ack=218112 Win=811 Len=0 SLE=219314 SRE=222090
   6431 06:27:38,670893    36.77.134.15          192.168.1.1          TCP      66     [TCP Dup ACK 6423#3] 61776 → 2225 [ACK] Seq=15918 Ack=218112 Win=811 Len=0 SLE=219314 SRE=222144
   6432 06:27:38,761538    192.168.1.1          36.77.134.15          TCP      1506   [TCP Retransmission] 2225 → 61776 [PSH, ACK] Seq=221016 Ack=15918 Win=259 Len=1452
   6433 06:27:38,761549    192.168.1.1          36.77.134.15          TCP      1506   2225 → 61776 [PSH, ACK] Seq=222468 Ack=15918 Win=259 Len=1452 [TCP segment of a reassembled PDU]
   6434 06:27:39,089604    192.168.1.1          36.77.134.15          TCP      1506   [TCP Retransmission] 2225 → 61776 [PSH, ACK] Seq=218112 Ack=15918 Win=259 Len=1452
   6435 06:27:39,090721    36.77.134.15          192.168.1.1          TCP      66     61776 → 2225 [ACK] Seq=15918 Ack=222144 Win=811 Len=0 SLE=219314 SRE=219564
   6436 06:27:39,090770    192.168.1.1          36.77.134.15          TCP      1506   2225 → 61776 [PSH, ACK] Seq=223920 Ack=15918 Win=259 Len=1452[Reassembly error, protocol TCP: New fragment overlaps old data (retransmission?)]
   6437 06:27:39,120832    192.168.1.1          36.77.134.15          TCP      1506   [TCP Retransmission] 2225 → 61776 [PSH, ACK] Seq=222144 Ack=15918 Win=259 Len=1452
   6438 06:27:39,120840    192.168.1.1          36.77.134.15          TCP      1506   [TCP Retransmission] 2225 → 61776 [PSH, ACK] Seq=223596 Ack=15918 Win=259 Len=1452
   6439 06:27:39,120845    192.168.1.1          36.77.134.15          TCP      1506   [TCP Retransmission] 2225 → 61776 [PSH, ACK] Seq=225048 Ack=15918 Win=259 Len=1452
   6440 06:27:39,120850    192.168.1.1          36.77.134.15          TCP      576    2225 → 61776 [PSH, ACK] Seq=226500 Ack=15918 Win=259 Len=522[Reassembly error, protocol TCP: New fragment overlaps old data (retransmission?)]
   6441 06:27:39,402228    192.168.1.1          36.77.134.15          TCP      660    2225 → 61776 [PSH, ACK] Seq=227022 Ack=15918 Win=259 Len=606[Reassembly error, protocol TCP: New fragment overlaps old data (retransmission?)]
   6442 06:27:39,571392    192.168.1.1          36.77.134.15          TCP      1506   [TCP Retransmission] 2225 → 61776 [PSH, ACK] Seq=222144 Ack=15918 Win=259 Len=1452
   6443 06:27:39,574085    36.77.134.15          192.168.1.1          TCP      66     61776 → 2225 [ACK] Seq=15918 Ack=222468 Win=809 Len=0 SLE=221016 SRE=222144
   6444 06:27:39,574119    192.168.1.1          36.77.134.15          TCP      1506   2225 → 61776 [PSH, ACK] Seq=227628 Ack=15918 Win=259 Len=1452[Reassembly error, protocol TCP: New fragment overlaps old data (retransmission?)]
   6445 06:27:39,586270    36.77.134.15          192.168.1.1          TCP      60     61776 → 2225 [ACK] Seq=15918 Ack=223920 Win=811 Len=0
   6446 06:27:39,586302    192.168.1.1          36.77.134.15          TCP      163    2225 → 61776 [PSH, ACK] Seq=229080 Ack=15918 Win=259 Len=109[Reassembly error, protocol TCP: New fragment overlaps old data (retransmission?)]
   6447 06:27:39,736270    36.77.134.15          192.168.1.1          TCP      66     [TCP Dup ACK 6445#1] 61776 → 2225 [ACK] Seq=15918 Ack=223920 Win=811 Len=0 SLE=218112 SRE=219564
   6448 06:27:39,751012    36.77.134.15          192.168.1.1          TCP      66     61776 → 2225 [ACK] Seq=15918 Ack=225372 Win=811 Len=0 SLE=222144 SRE=223596
   6449 06:27:39,751079    192.168.1.1          36.77.134.15          TCP      531    2225 → 61776 [PSH, ACK] Seq=229189 Ack=15918 Win=259 Len=477[Reassembly error, protocol TCP: New fragment overlaps old data (retransmission?)]
   6450 06:27:39,751346    36.77.134.15          192.168.1.1          TCP      66     [TCP Dup ACK 6448#1] 61776 → 2225 [ACK] Seq=15918 Ack=225372 Win=811 Len=0 SLE=223596 SRE=225048
   6451 06:27:39,752204    36.77.134.15          192.168.1.1          TCP      66     [TCP ACKed unseen segment] 61776 → 2225 [ACK] Seq=15918 Ack=226500 Win=806 Len=0 SLE=225048 SRE=225372
   6452 06:27:39,752687    36.77.134.15          192.168.1.1          TCP      60     61776 → 2225 [ACK] Seq=15918 Ack=227022 Win=811 Len=0
   6453 06:27:39,821701    36.77.134.15          192.168.1.1          TCP      60     61776 → 2225 [ACK] Seq=15918 Ack=227628 Win=808 Len=0
   6454 06:27:39,821743    192.168.1.1          36.77.134.15          TCP      534    2225 → 61776 [PSH, ACK] Seq=229666 Ack=15918 Win=259 Len=480[Reassembly error, protocol TCP: New fragment overlaps old data (retransmission?)]

Thank you for your response. I will try it out later today. It sure sounds like I have some things to learn about this software. I like that.
Much appreciated.

I tested the new version 4 and was going to buy it until i discovered i cant switch pools etc from the GUI using ccminer. It is greyed out and it says "Basic" connection. I also hope it is possible to use different gpu settings per ccminer based rig. Did i miss something obvious or is these function not going to work for people mining with the environment in mind(since amd almost doubles electicity usage)? Or is there a workaround somehow?

Please explain this so i can buy it. Im excited to set it up and watch the dashboard..

You need to make sure you use correct settings for the coin. Displayed hashrate is ofcourse changing if you make the job easier for the graphics card.
Dont do things backwards. Use easy settings -> See that it works! -> Then take one card from your rig and try to make it work faster -> Once you succeed, make all graphic cards use optimal settings.

Thats what I have learned from rushing things in the past. You end up 7 days from now with no coins because the blockchain will not accept wrong hashes in the end. Coins need 520 confirmations in order to make sure noone can get coins easier than anybody else. Thats what a fair distribution is all about.

My thoughts from understanding cuda is that we need new mining software to make use of new graphics cards in order to press through the 50Hs/s (and accepted) boundaries. Maybe someone has coded a private miner for himself and thats why hashrate increased. We need a new cgminer/ccminer and fast Cachecoin has pretty good things ahead but there are so many good alternatives with optimized miners available we should look for a miningdeveloper to look into this. Maybe Vega is good for this coin with fast 8gb memory. Any ideas?

I have been testing the software and will be giving my point of view from a "mining-business" point of view. Tested on Windows 10 x64 LTSB & Pro edition.

I like the higher, and stable, difficulty on the pool. All workers strive to become the same difficulty of 248 (or such).
GUI is very pleasing to the eye, maybe the best one I've seen. I would like to see yet another wattage monitor for all GPUs combined. Like GPU1 120w, GPU2 120w, GPU3 150w, Total GPU wattage 390w. If CPU wattage could be included in a "Total System Wattage" monitoring that would also be interesting but not as important.
Stability was a small issue when pushing limits. If one card hangs up the miner looks like it's still working, except the Mh/s goes crazy and reports Gh/s into oblivion. I think most miners would love a software that excludes a faulty GPU from mining, reporting the owner via API, and continues on with the rest of the GPUs until there's time to look into the matter.

Since speed-optimization isn't yet a priority, I'm looking forward to see this project continue to develop.
Looking forward to next release and I will help with another evaluation.

This is a project my miners will support for the fact that it focuses initially on nvidia. Power usage is much lower than for AMD and therefor more friendly to our environment. The heat produced from our mining is used to heat up homes instead of wasting it out into the open. I hope this development continues on the green side of mining. PM sent.