|
One more bump before bed. Need TWO more high rep users, and 4% more commitment score (so maybe 8 users total). C'mon guys, I want to see this thing done when I wake up tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
95% commitment score. Probably need about 10 more signups in total.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey guys, guess what?
Bump.
|
|
|
|
|
You realize that the wallet encryption code in the I0coin client was just taken from the Bitcoin client, right? It'll be enabled once it's been fully tested, so even this small advantage isn't going to help I0C in the long run.
|
|
|
|
It *does* bother me what Luke-Jr said about freedom of religion, but maybe I'm just interpreting that wrong.
No, it should pretty much be taken at face value. Here's some more:luke-jr : (23:58) MSSmallBiz: there is no such thing as a non-Catholic Christian by definition
Yeti : (23:58) luke-jr: close to a billion people disagree with you on that
luke-jr : (23:59) Yeti: irrelevant
luke-jr : (23:59) truth is not a democracy either
MSSmallBiz : (23:59) luke-jr: then what do you call Baptist, just Baptist? A Episcopalian is ?
luke-jr : (23:59) MSSmallBiz: heretics
|
|
|
|
The prayers are a stupid gimmick that don't affect much. They do kind of mess up Dan Kaminsky's cool hack, which is sad but probably inevitable. That said, I'm surprised that people aren't more concerned about Luke-jr in general. The guy is a shady christian fascist that shouldn't be trusted to run a hot dog stand, let alone run a semi-popular mining pool and contribute code to the Bitcoin client. IRC logs where he expounds on his politics make for some fun reading: http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/logs/2011/02/03/12http://eligius.searchonirc.com/?d=2011-07-05-23It's kind of odd that the overwhelmingly libertarian Bitcoin community puts up with him at all. I guess the overall level of crazy around here is high enough that he just blends in. |
|
|
|
Do you take drugs Danny?
No but they want to put me on them. That's not necessarily a terrible thing, depending on your situation. Medication is over-prescribed for sure, but that doesn't mean that it's never genuinely needed. |
|
|
|
|
Our "commitment score" now seems to be the limiting factor that we need to increase, at 94%. We need more users regardless of reputation level (though not many more) in order to increase it. We only need 4 more high-rep users.
|
|
|
|
I tried that with one of the bitcoin questions on Stack Overflow, but it felt too much like spamming. Not sure if it's actually against the rules, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is. |
|
|
|
See how different this dialog is going oppose to me calling you a (insert any bad word here), and it all would of started because of a simple misunderstanding. I'm sure you've witnessed many back-and-forth exchanges on this board that didn't end well. I'm 51 with a lot of life experience under my belt, therefore I know how to handle ridicule (for lack of a better word). There's folks here a heck of a lot younger that simply post FU at the FIRST sign of being criticized. But enough said of that for it's Bitcoin...(needs a great Water Under the Bridge analogy--any suggestions).
Ironically, being more argumentative and confrontational would probably gain this thread more attention. Just look what happened with ixcoin; I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have taken off (such as it did) without all the haters repeatedly bumping that thread when it first showed up. Also, 94%. O_O |
|
|
|
What bitcoin needs in the way of an alternate coinage is a way for any individual to issue their own currency. Such a currency need not require proof of work to secure the block chain...block creation could be left to the issuer and verified based on a digital signature (for that matter, block creation could be managed by several people or entities using secret sharing or multiple signing). This would offer every individual an ability to issue their own cryptographically secure and pseudo-anonymous currency. Their currency could be in the form of an IOU for some other currency (ie. bitcoin, gold, dollars, etc). Building on top of that, a trust network where people decide to what extent they trust another individual's currency could be established. For example, Bill might decide to trust Bob for as much as a $1000 IOU. A routing protocol (akin to BGP) could then be used to find paths through such a network in order to transfer wealth using these privately issued currencies, very much like RipplePay. With a few more pieces added, it's conceivable that you could have a completely decentralized mechanism of exchanging virtually anything for bitcoin.
I believe what you're looking for is a "digital bearer certificate" system. I worked on one a while back called "AEIOU" (an electronic IOU). "Open Transactions" is another DBC system that I've heard mentioned a fair bit lately. |
|
|
|
Bump, because this is as important as threads like "Justin Beiber & Bitcoin". I've been watching and reading this thread and everything written at http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/30763/bitcoin-crypto-currency?referrer=qst3DhfKtxHspDOgXlkhmg2 because it shows great promise. Lucky for you that a snide comment, directed towards me, doesn't negate, in my mind, what a useful service you are planning to offer the Bitcoin community. Unless, perhaps, I didn't get the memo outlining that this is an excellent business strategy and should be implemented immediately. Until I receive such a memo, I'm very careful on what, and how, I post on this, or any other, forum. Never alienate a single customer--he may tell 10 friends, then they tell... Whoa there killer, it was meant as tongue-in-cheek. I would say that it was a joke, but I really do believe that infrastructure needs more focus than promotion does right now. Also, realistic, immediately-attainable goals need more focus than fanciful, far-off goals (such as "pin the logo on the celebrity"). That said, thank you for your support. It's probably better to say that this thread is far more important than the i0coin and ixcoin forks that I've been poking at for a few days which have recently represented 3/5 of the "last posts" section for a few days now.
Yeah, those too. I wish I'd never waded into them. They're fascinating to watch, but I've wasted far too much time doing so. |
|
|
|
|
Bump, because this is more important than threads like "Justin Beiber & Bitcoin".
|
|
|
|
Made a post on /r/Bitcoin. There have been two other such posts, and both brought in a good number of new users. Hopefully this one will get us there. |
|
|
|
how much would it cost me to get one of you genius coders to make me a new bitcoin fork?  I'll do it if you're actually willing to pay for the project. PM'ing you. |
|
|
|
|
We're getting close enough that I feel comfortable shamelessly bumping this to keep it on the front page.
|
|
|
|
With prices plumetting 66% of its value in 24 hours I'm not sure ixcoins is the best investment for mining or buying a virtual currency. With difficulty rise just around the corner I find it hard pressed to see the exchange rate rise above the profitability of the other markets.
Et tu, smoothie? Great for traders though  Only if there's going to be another bounce before the thing dies out. Unless you know of a way to short ixcoins? |
|
|
|
How far apart do two miners with hashes that meet the requirements of the cryptographic algorithm for mining *coins in order for the has to be considered valid?
Is it 1 second? 2seconds? 3 seconds? More?
It's not a fixed amount of time. If two miners each find a block based on the same parent block, only one of them is going to be accepted by the network, and the other will be abandoned. So practically speaking, there needs to be enough time for new blocks to propagate through the network so that miners know about them and base their calculations on the new block instead of the old one. The time needed is going to be less on a small, well-connected network, and greater on a large, poorly-connected network. If you had a network where all the miners are directly connected to each other, the time between new blocks could be on the order of milliseconds without creating orphans. |
|
|
|
Actually it is a right shift, so it is more like this:
1st stage: 50
2nd stage: 25
3rd stage: 12
4th stage: 6
5th stage: 3
6th stage: 1
7th stage: 0
Total should be 210000*50 + 210000*25 + 210000*12 + 210000*6 + 210000*3 + 210000*1 = 20370000
Again, unless I'm missing something or screwed up my math/logic somewhere
The mining reward is measured in Satoshis. It'll eventually get rounded down to zero, but not that quickly. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
