How do you build/compile the daemon so it can be added to a pool's array of merged mined coins?

-MarkM-

What is the coin for? Or who is it for?

What is it about all existing coins that makes them unable to perform the function this coin is intended to perform?

-MarkM-

A good time to sell then. Buying time is when it goes massively low, not when it already went up...

-MarkM-

How expensive are you imagining merged mining to be?!?!

-MarkM-

Are these things only for Windows or do they work with normal multi-platform software too?

-MarkM-

"blocks" : 2323371

-MarkM-

Many coins no one changed the bitcoind name in the makefile.unix, I think GeistGeld might be one of them.

So instead of making geistgeldd try making bitcoind.

That is, if "make -f makefile.unix geistgeldd" does not work (or in general for any coin the coin's correct daemon name) try "make -f makefile.unix bitcoind"

Then just rename it (and optionally strip it, "strip bitcoind" or "strip geistgeldd" of debug symbols if you have no plans to run it under a debugger or collect core dump output files for analysis).

To run on a server you might want to make sure the makefile tells it not to link in the miniUPNP library, or "make USE_UPNP= -f makefile.unix bitcoind" to disable linking in of the PNP library. (Since datacentre likely won't want you using PNP to mess with their router. )

-MarkM-

And the difficulty adaptiveness. Pretty much all the merged mined coins switched from bitcoin's difficulty calculations, really the only reason bitcoin itself didn't was bitcoin itself has historically not yet suffered the situation of not being number one in the world in hashing power. Look what DOGE did to Litecoin though, poof litecoin is no longer the highest hashing power chain, it could start to suffer from migratory miners who fly by night following some profitability site's calculations of which cin is most profitable to mine from moment to moment.

Bitcoin devs felt that bitcoin would never face that, so they didn't improve the difficulty adaptiveness. Namecoion, GRouPcoin, DeVCoin, IXCoin, I0Coin and maybe others too all moved to adaptiveness that is more able to recover from fly by night miners. GeistGeld seems to be even more sensitive, it adjusts extremely fast it seems.

Basically Bitcoin is just resting on its laurels, blandly assuming it will always have the most hashing power and never be left in the lurch at a high difficulty like historically happened to namecoin leading to namecoin improving its adaptiveness and other coins then copying namecoin's method (I think).

Nowadays most of the crapcoins of the day all have much faster dapatation of difficulty, it is simply a necessity for any coin that is not reasonably able to assume it is the world's favourite and will never ever have its miners run off leaving it at high difficulty so that it gets "stuck" for weeks or months struggling to slowly grind out blocks hoping to some day week month or year eventually reach its next scheduled difficulty-adjustment.

-MarkM-

In the QT client we deliberately disabled mining because it caused crashes, something in the QT was not thread-safe it seemed but we did not know enough about QT's threading and such to even figure out what exactly was happening. Since CPU mining was already pretty much obsolete (I thought that recent bitcoin code doesn't even have generate=1 anymore itself?) we just turned off the ability to set generate true figuring people who want to mine would in any case be using the daemon not the GUI.

-MarkM-

There is a #devcoin channel on Freenode IRC too, has been for long long long time though I guess the first few years hardly anyone was using it.

-MarkM-

EDIT: Re devcoin ports, they default to a standard, no need to specify them in a config unless using other than those defaults.

In a private message you wrote "The URL is: http://95.85.36.199:6333"

That is not the normal/correct port for devcoin, so is not going to work as a seed node I am pretty sure.

I am rpetty sure the seed nodes work - or at least used to work - by assuming the hostname or IP address hard-coded into the code will have a daemon running at the normal standard port. So the seeds list lists only the IP addresses or hostnames I think.

-MarkM-

EDIT: It occurs to me too that this might cause people who try to use non-standard ports to have trouble finding connections, since it seems quite likely that whatever port they configure their node to use will end up being the port that all the seed hosts will be assumed to be using.

Of course the new clients are based on new bitcoin code so maybe they long ago fixed this potential problem, maybe it'd only apply to the ancient code I am used to.

Yeah transcripts are a great idea, I hate clicking a link and finding it is just sound or video with no transcript because reading you can do at your own pace and random-access whereas video and sound try to force you to waste any amount of time they choose and at their pace not your own pace.

-MarkM-

wxwidgets is ancient, and even way back then the version needed was an out of date version.

I put a tarball of the one I was using at http://sourceforge.net/projects/galacticmilieu/files/

Because even then it was getting tricky to get the exact right version.

I never used it with GeistGeld though, frankly I never use GUIs of coins anyway so that tarball of wxwidgets dates back from when we were building GRouPcoin and DeVCoin maybe or something like that. But it is the version Satoshi used for bitcoin.

You don't need the wx crap to compile geistgeldd though. Is it worth the wxwidgets hassle just to have a stupid GUI instead of using commandline?

Really if people want a GUI they should get someone to make them a newer version based on a more recent version of bitcoin that uses QT for its GUI.

-MarkM-

How long ago did you git clone it?

I had to clone it again because it turned out the fix had not been made the default branch you get when you clone, it was still in some other branch of the repo.

Now if you clone from scratch you actually get the fix as the default code it will build.

-MarkM-

Look at the difficulty/hashrate.

Even litecoin is weak, any coin so weak that an internet meme can conjure up enough hashrate to PWN it overnight is way too insecure to store money in.

So basically all the scrypt coins are garbage, with litecoin and DOGE mostly serving to demonstrate just how pathetic they all are...

-MarkM-

No wonder no one wants IXCoin... It seems the developers plan to screw everyone by scrwing with the number of coins.

Who can trustt a coin that pretends it will have so many in total then starts taling about maybe making more?

You are undermining the whole basis of trust.

Why not make Bitcoin go back to 50 coins per block while you are at it?

If no one can depend on coins to stick to their purported schedule of mining they are all garbage, might as well stick with dollars.

If IXCoin's minting schedule is not to your liking go use I0Coin or something.

-MarkM-

Does this apply to the daemons?

As I recall there is an input verification in the GUI that one needs to change to make address in the GUI work right, when we first made GRPcoin and DVCcoin we discovered that.

Other than that well maybe compare the code of the two versions see if they treat addresses differently?

-MarkM-

DOGE showed how much hash power a stpid meme can drum up overnight, so any blockchain that does not have more than that much hash power is a mistake from the start and should find some other format to use instead of trying to be a blockchain.

Maybe do as other coins did in the past: move to using Open Transactions instead of a blockchain.

Blockchains are insanely expensive to secure. So it is not surprising that most cannot be secured.

Shift to some other platform instead of trying to be a blockchain.

-MarkM-

Different sites will choose different colour anyway maybe based on their theme, to fit with their theme?

So both the gold and the red could be good, as long as they are vibrant instead of washed out and and on black for clarity instead of the weird faded grey thing.

We shouldn't look faded we should look crisp and shiny and clear and fresh.

-MarkM-

That is what happens when you try to use cryptocoins as "units of account".

It is just like what they do at those market cap sites. You take the purported current value of one coin and pretend that it will not change no matter how many you are speaking of.

You get the same kind of effect if you try to express the assessed tax value of a town or city and stuff like that.

Cryptocoins act weird as units of account. Dollars would maybe do the same too if you used them to try to measure things that are very large compared to the number of dollars that have been printed or even the number purportedly in bank balances.

Maybe the numbers make more sense when expressed in Martian BotCoins?

-MarkM-