And maybe the NSA has an undisclosed backdoor for RSA? Thing is we don't know for sure so it's not enough to use this as a reason to prefer one over the other. But one reason for going with ECC over RSA is smaller key sizes.

It's generally known that RSA requires a longer key length to achieve the same level of security than ECC. See this for stackexchange question for example. Usually that translates to lower overhead, smaller memory footprint, better performance and all the other jazz.

looks like it's going the way of pandacoin :p

Don't know anyone personally that did that but a search on the forum you can find numerous complaints by users against cryptorush on this problem.

Pobably, or it could be someone willing to up to that much for the coin but wasn't aware of how cryptorush's system works; so in a way they got tricked by the exchange. I mean if this was any other properly functioning exchange, their order would be fill at the lower price points first before it ever hits 0.0008-0.0009.

Not as far as I know; if that were true, we should be seeing crazy outlier spikes in mintpal's charts too.

That's due to cryptorush not having a proper price matching system. For example, if you put a buy order for 0.0008 per coin, cyptorush stupidly tries to match and fill your order exactly at that price. In other words, even if there's an outstanding sell order in the orderbooks at a lower price, that isn't considered. This is exactly why people need to stop trading on that piece of shit platform they call an exchange.

So does mazacoin even use gravity well for block re-targeting? What's to stop an entity with farms of asic hashing power from just performing a DOS attack on the network?

So why exactly is mazacoin welcoming asic's with sha256? Wouldn't going with something more asic resistent, like scrypt-adaptive N or scrypt-jane, make more sense since that will help decentralized and better secure the network. As it stands now, mazacoin is exposed to the same risk as bitcoin, namely where there's a concentration of hashing power to a few entities increasing the risk for a 51%.

So why exactly is mazacoin welcoming asic's with sha256? Wouldn't going with something more asic resistent, like scrypt-adaptive N or scrypt-jane, make more sense since that will help decentralized and better secure the network. As it stands now, mazacoin is exposed to the same risk as bitcoin, namely where there's a concentration of hashing power to a few entities increasing the risk for a 51%.

TIGERBLOOD!

http://www.clevermining.com/profits/24-hours

How is it possible for clevermining to be doing worse than mining straight LTC? That's a lot of reds in the hourly rounds chart. Can't we just mine dodgecoins or something until the market proves?

gox 2.0?

Let's hope it's not this,

I'm not receiving any email for the IPO investment from the site. Is this still on?

Interested and waiting. Would like to see the whitepaper on how this Proof of Fiction works -- definitely before any "IPO investment" is put in.

I haven't seen any mention of re-enabling vardiff yet. Is this going to be done at the same time as the new servers come online?

Anon must be using a different fee structure because I put in 0.5045 btc expecting 0.5 btc towards ipo but on exo's investor's list it shows my hash with only 0.4945 btc which means the fee ended up being closer to 2%.

Are they usually on top of new coin launches though?

Are there any pools out there that doesn't require registration everytime a new coin comes out? It's just plain ludicrous having to repeatedly do this, setup the same worker names again and again. Why don't they just copy the user profile across all the subdomains so we don't have to go through this process when a new altcoin gets released.

Here's a quick question, how do you know some of those invested IPO's aren't just the scammer sending btc to himself to make it look more than it is?