|
It compounds.. so as you're getting stake / interest, you start earning stake on that interest received.
|
|
|
|
|
I think those matter to a degree but, adoption and popularity I think are the key factors.
Something that everyone is going to use and keep using, ie. Google etc..
|
|
|
|
How anonymous/decentralized is the marketplace going to be? With being closed source at launch.. I'm guessing nsa nodes/backdoors all over the place  |
|
|
|
This is why I don't do giveaways. Even when things are free, people find something to complain about
You can please some people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all the time ..  |
|
|
|
This is not an informative post, but I just realized (it took this long for some reason), that BitBay might make Silkroad-type darknet markets obsolete or far inferior. Could someone share thoughs on this?
Im surprised this hasn't really been elaborated on but I think thats exactly where part BitBays market lies. It could never be brought down like the others.  SilkBay ) With this being closed source at first, I have my doubts as to the viability of this being a "dark market" type of entity. Have to see the source code. |
|
|
|
|
Will this soon be available on other exchanges besides bter?
Also, will you eventually allow other coins to be used in the marketplace portion of the client?
Or is that impossible?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
There is no wallet for this yet ?  Our Windows wallet is ready and is 100% certified by the Crypto Certify team. We will launch the wallet moments before the markets go LIVE @ 22:00 GMT. A certified Mac build will be released shortly after. Thanks! Will git source be available to compile it ? Bump... |
|
|
|
There is no wallet for this yet ? Our Windows wallet is ready and is 100% certified by the Crypto Certify team. We will launch the wallet moments before the markets go LIVE @ 22:00 GMT. A certified Mac build will be released shortly after. Thanks! Will git source be available to compile it ? |
|
|
|
There is no wallet for this yet ? |
|
|
|
Not sure if this is a minor bug but:
I compiled on Ubuntu 14.04
with:
qmake-qt4 "USE_UPNP=-"
make
and after it was done compiling & I run ./HyperStake-qt
Under Tools > Options > Network tab
The checkmark for "Map port using UPnP" is stuck being checked and I cannot uncheck it...
So is UPnP disabled or is it trying to be enabled but stuck somehow, or is it just a gui problem?
Thanks..
Bump .. |
|
|
|
|
Not sure if this is a minor bug but:
I compiled on Ubuntu 14.04
with:
qmake-qt4 "USE_UPNP=-"
make
and after it was done compiling & I run ./HyperStake-qt
Under Tools > Options > Network tab
The checkmark for "Map port using UPnP" is stuck being checked and I cannot uncheck it...
So is UPnP disabled or is it trying to be enabled but stuck somehow, or is it just a gui problem?
Thanks..
|
|
|
|
|
Is Version 1.0.7.2 a mandatory update?
I'm still on 1.0.6 is that ok yet?
|
|
|
|
|
I think a lot of it is just psychology - money just goes where people think they can make the most money in the shortest amount of time.
When alts get even more cheap and there is the temptation to make a lot of money quickly again.. watch money flow back into alts.
|
|
|
|
At some point we will no longer recognize Bitcoin for what it used to be, and the idea of keeping any promise would vanish into oblivion. Would you trust the money system that is constantly changing not keeping the original promise? Sounds a lot like today's politics to me.
You have to take into account simple economics and numbers. They don't lie. Bitcoin and other PoW coins are not efficient to mine - if the numbers don't work out and they are not profitable, eventually there will be no more value in these coins. Simple as that, numbers and facts don't lie. |
|
|
|
 :)the following are just my opinion    1. we need a maximum number of coins to establish balls as a coin. 2. we need vast social media coverage using our main force that says that balls will grow larger (13%) per day 3 we need merchant acceptance (high quality merchants like gold and precious metals or other things of real value so that fees dont play a vital matter but help keep staking alive 4 we need irc channel and tipbots that tip miniscule or big amounts but allow offchain transactions so users can get their hands on their balls easier, this will provide more and much needed exposure to the general public more stakers and so on 5 we need more exchanges acceptance 6 distribution of the coins seems ok although there seems to be a few number of whales 7 if we are to survive as a coin people must hold their coins long term or buy more to support the network 8 ann thread seems plain but informative. we need more graphics and information because at this point its our face to the world. 9 a foundation to keep a look on things "Yeah so technically it must not fall below 50% a week.. Smiley Thanks for that.." if the above statement from a woman with balls is correct (seems to me to be) the coin can very well counter exchange attacks also more features like tor anonimity in cooperation with other coins devs. this coin is just unique and may be the next bitcoin my friends because it allows sustainable minting without the need to mine anything. my balls address : SQYzqnepFjmSJDLhCCTDfm8dcSoY6x5PKZ Good points. An addition on this. Maybe there can be created a sort of super snowball. Witch you only can get by burning normal snowballs (maybe 100000), something like dogeparty. Could help to control the inflation. Item #5 No more small unsafe exchanges. If anything, lets work on cryptsy. Last thing I want is to move my BALLS to an exchange and it shutdown. Anyway everyone should have their BALLS in their wallet to STAKE. no sense leaving them on a exchange. STAKE STAKE STAKE BTCBTCDoubleDD Is poloniex considered "small and unsafe" ? |
|
|
|
|
I don't mean this to be off-topic but ..
why is it Poloniex always seems to timeout for me and I can't connect?
Other people don't seem to have this problem
I try from other computers and same problem, but if I try from other internet location/isp .. its fine..
Are they banning me or blocking my ip? I don't get it, sometimes its fine, sometimes not.
Another thing, I can connect to it fine through TOR .. so it has to be something with blocking my ip?
|
|
|
|
When you bounce a ball, what happens after it hits the floor?
Depends on the material of the ball.. if glass it will most likely shatter. In this case, maybe its snow.. will just go splat? But then you have 100 tiny snowballs I hope we get back to 20k sat one day.. I do also! Seeing how I'm invested in this and 100 more snowballs would be awesome. |
|
|
|
When you bounce a ball, what happens after it hits the floor?
Depends on the material of the ball.. if glass it will most likely shatter. In this case, maybe its snow.. will just go splat? |
|
|
|
Is there some console command that shows coin age and stake weight (for your coins - not overall network) Seems like there isn't anywhere in the client that shows this?? Or maybe it shows when hovering over stake icon .. when staking? |
|
|
|
Compile it yourself, then, the source link is right next to the Windows link. If they are different, they won't work together
What if you compile on different machines ? Will they both have a same SHA-1 sum ? Well after reading around, it seems that solution won't work so well.. You could recompile the source code and see if it yields the same binary. However, the exact binary can vary depending on a lot of parameters, including the compilation options and the exact version of the used compiler. Moreover, some compilers embed some "comments" in binary files, comments which usually include the compiler version but also may include the "build number" (if such a number is maintained) and, possibly, the build date and time -- in that case, you will not get the same binary, not down to the last byte. If you want to see if you got the "same" binary, you may thus have to first strip them of such comments (the Unix strip command may be useful).
Strictly speaking, compilation could be randomized; since generating optimal code is a hard problem, some compilers employ randomized algorithms which, heuristically, are good on average. Such a compiler could generate a distinct binary each time. Since such behaviour makes debugging much harder, many compilers who indulge in heuristic algorithms will still try to be reproducible (i.e. they will get their randomness from a PRNG seeded with a specific, configurable value).
There is a much simpler solution: if you have the source code and can recompile it, then just use the output of your recompilation.
Of course, this does not completely solves the problem of trust; it just moves it around. When compiling from source:
you have to trust that the source code does not contain backdoors;
you have to trust the compiler itself for not playing nasty tricks on you. The only for sure way would be to review the source code and just have to trust my own compiled version, I guess. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
