Hey, what do you know...I already compiled a version at 100. Must have done that for myself to try out. Will PM you a link to download as I (now) don't feel people should be using these unless they know what they're doing.

Do you think that 8 hours should be reduced to increase the opportunity to stake?


Yes. What do you want...100 or 500?

Yup, you're right...~2.89 hours until you can stake again. Forget I said anything...for some reason I thought it was over 8.

Again with the strange % sign in front of the number instead of after....just like Cryptcracker uses.

Where does this % in front of the number come from? I have never seen it before...and the two of you using it leads me to believe that you are the same person.

Edit: It was bugging me so I searched
"In Persian and Turkish, the percent sign precedes rather than follows the number."
Soooo are both these people Persian and/or Turkish? Could they really know each other? Nah, most likely they are the same person.

Edit2: My hopes of recovery are quickly diminishing.     ...stupid of me to think (hope) this was real I guess.  

Edit3: On the bright side at least Gleb does not have to blow his brains out! 

Don't worry. Paul is an "up and up" guy. He wouldn't do you wrong. 

So Cryptcracker appears to know the identity of the person who stole the coins and is asking for a % back once recovered. He does not have some magical way to brute force the private keys.

Now it appears that he is not divulging the identity but acting as an intermediary most likely threatening the thief with exposure if they don't comply. I imagine the delay is attempting to communicate with the person holding the coin.

Cryptcracker is putting a lot of trust in Paul that once the funds are recovered he will get paid. He is attempting to use public pressure and exposure of a "contract" as leverage. This exposes a naiveness on his part as it would have been better to have BTC initially transferred to an address under his control and sent the remainder back to Paul.

It is conceivable that Cryptcracker could be wrong as to the identity of the thief.

I was thinking...we could lower the amount of time coins stay "staked" I forget how many blocks it is for POT but it is quite a few hours. Maybe we lower it? Unfortunately this type of change would require a hard fork.

I am not intimately familiar with the inner workings of posv so this is just an idea from someone who should probably stay quite.  

Thanks!

Hope the funds get returned! This whole situation is quite interesting. Best of luck getting the exchange going again.

Has anyone been able to get into their accounts on Cryptsy? I have been locked out for over a week due to their 2 factor text message system being down.

Block!  

Man, that was a tough patch. 27.90% luck...miners dropped from the mid 200 to under 170 :/

Turn on coin control. Click select inputs on the send tab. It will show you the addresses your coins are in.

If you really want your coins in the same address select the ones in the other address for the input. Remember to put the address you want all your coins into in the select change address as well as the send to address.

Paraphrasing all this from memory but it should give you an idea.

Judge will most likely order the company be placed into receivership.

Here's are some thoughts...

AuxPOW with a 1 CSC reward and same supply. That could provide enough hash to secure the blockchain and extend mining out to ~50 years if the total supply is kept the same.

While it's being discussed how about also changing to a 1 minute block time? That would further extend mining out (to ~100 years). Most blocks are empty so 30 seconds is just filling up the blockchain with useless data. I think 1 minute block times are plenty fast.

...another thing that can be changed is the amount of time before a mined block becomes spendable. Right now it is rather short so people are able to use newly generated coins quite quickly.

Good stuff guys...thank you for taking the time to outline our options. Sorry if my other post came of as being flippant. That was not my intent.
Two examples to look at are Dogecoin and Potcoin. Doge, as most of you may know, successfully transitioned to AuxPOW while POT went with POS Velocity.

I believe Doge went to AuxPOW because they felt it was necessary to have massive hash to secure the blockchain. Especially since the mining reward was essentially going away and perhaps the fees would not be enough to keep miners. I at first thought it was odd that they wanted more hash since they had what I felt was a lot to begin with but they now have as much if not more than LTC. There is essentially no chance of 50%ing their blockchain.

I have seen arguments against AuxPOW since miners get it "for free" and are more inclined to sell it right away since they have no invested interest.

vPOS (think this is what it's called...Proof of Share Velocity) seems to be the latest flavor of POS. It rewards people who keep the full wallet open and running. Perhaps we can modify that to include wallets running with incoming connections open? I really have not done much research into POS. I did modify and release a version of the POT wallet that decreased the split threshold to produce shares more often. Have thought about making it a user selectable setting. vPOS seems to be working "ok" for POT although I haven't really looked into it too deeply.

I keep thinking though that rather than discussing major changes such as these perhaps we should be concentrating on updating the wallet with the latest code revisions from BTC/LTC? Have been throwing around the idea of doing it myself but the time and effort is really too great. Was going to call it CasinoCoin Core or something along those lines.

Have never been a fan of "changing the rules of the game". It has happened once already for CSC and was not happy about it then. I feel any crypto that "changes the rules" looses credibility. Imagine if BTC decided to change the reward structure or coin supply? Let's be honest...what is being proposed is simply just a means of currency manipulation.

Other stuff like diff adjustments, algo, AuxPOW, POS, etc. are bearable but to a lot of people are still bad form.

Oh well, just stating my peace....and trying to provide some level of guidance.  

Do as you wish  

....and will it really be a consensus decision? Who will vote? The miners you are trying to penalize? No, I imagine if this change is done people will try to force everyone to "upgrade" to the new version regardless of how the miners vote with their hash. All you have to do is convince enough key people to "upgrade" and to hell with consensus.  

There appears to be constant sell pressure on Alcurex. I would imagine this is coming from a pool that is auto converting to BTC.

$2,500/month for child support on two kids on a yearly salary of $100K is high. Should be closer to $2,000/month. How much % of time does he have with the kids? If it is 0% then $2,500 sounds about right.

How long were they married? How much is spousal support?

Child support is paid post tax so if one makes $100K then after taxes they take home about $70K. Take away another $30K for child support and that leaves a person with $40K to support themselves. Less after you factor in spousal support.

Also take into consideration that the $30K in child support does not cover the expenses for when the kids are with you. You will have to use some of the $40K left over to support the kids while they are in your care.

I did not see any mention of imputed income for the wife. I'm sure she is fully capable of working so the courts (and his attorney's) should have made the support calculations based on her ability to make a minimum income of at least $25K year. That would reduce child support.

Lesson: It makes no financial sense to get legally marry or have children! Don't do it kids!

Edit: Unless the person you are marrying or having children with make more than you...if that is the case go for it! ...but I still believe the only thing legal marriage is good for is making attorneys rich.  

Not good if you can't run the latest version of CSC inside a clean VM.... I am inclined to fork CSC and update it with the latest code from LTC...if only I had the time. If the direction of CSC continues like it is (requiring specific graphic drivers, etc) then maybe I will find the time.

For those who do not want/like installers here is a version of the latest CSC client (2.0.1.0) without the installer:
https://mega.nz/#!3tZXHDoC!S4ZASxCIlPfbx9KvgmlCRCk-TG2Hn3jqOG0jAVzL8fw

Version 1.3.0.0 without graphic driver issues:
https://mega.nz/#!K5xXWIYI!0mSiGSjMwF9vPsz1ZwMRpGgds6CpT-_ivq_nxP2-8k4

Did this issue ever get resolved? I just tried using CasinoCoin 2.0.1.0 (finally) in a brand new Windows 10 VM and it is missing the graphics.

The posts below from earlier in this thread below may be related to the issue...