Precompiled? I'm not sure. I always build my own.

I proposed the discount/exchange but I have revised my position and I'm now against it as well, because it is too confusing and some people feel like their coins are being taken away. Whatever other merits there might be, that's too high a price to pay.

Another solution is to temporarily reduce emissions until the new curve is reached. This can probably be done gradually over a period of a month or two. Maybe it isn't quite as "fair" (tough word to define) as everyone giving back their coins, but from the point of view of anyone mining after the new curve is reached, it is pretty much the same (no "extra" coins will have been given out before they joined). I am in favor of either this or the crowdfunding approach.

I'm in favor of the 21 curve. I suggest this be done by leaving the formula alone and changing the block target back to two minutes. The original premise for one minute was to help solo mining. Solo mining is already difficult and new miners are complaining that they often don't get anything, and the coin is only a week old! The increased orphans created by one minute blocks are not a worthwhile trade off.

Failing that I would adjust the formula to the 21 curve.

I will submit my vote to the poll as well as this comment.

I will donate half my coins if the switch is made. It is also conditional on merged mining not being implemented because in that case I will likely sell all my coins and focus my attention elsewhere. Right now that would be about 10k coins. That might be different later.

If you want to vote against, do nothing and do not upgrade your nodes.

If you want to vote for, you can perhaps just upgrade to the current version from github, although TFT said he would be changing it to require some explicit action to vote, instead of treating everyone who newly downloads or upgrades as voting "for" by default.

The outcome was that the namecoin difficulty shot up my an enormous amount. Namecoin was easily solo mineable before merged mining went in. I know this because I mined namecoin before the merge. After the merger, it was not.

I tried to find a chart showing namecoin difficulty from way back then (2011), but I couldn't. Bitcoin difficulty probably also increased a little on the margin, since people previously mining namecoin instead of bitcoin switched over to mining both, although namecoin was so much smaller than bitcoin this effect was likely negligible.

Exactly, but you will find fewer blocks (higher difficulty).


I was only assuming double because that makes the calculation and illustration easier. If you work it out with actual hash rate numbers you get the same result -- some coins on each chain, but fewer of each.

You can already get some coins on each chain if you want, just mine with one computer on each chain, or if you only have one computer, switch off between them.

There is no free lunch. If you can mine both, so can everybody else, and the difficulty must go up.

You're ignoring that the difficulty of both coins will go up because nearly everyone will be mining both instead of choosing between one or the other. Yes, you will get two coins, but you will get half as many of each.

Likewise, if you mine anything at all with your computer or computers, the energy usage is the same. It doesn't matter if you mine one coin at lower difficulty or two coins at higher difficulty. Same energy usage, same output.

Not its exactly the same, since each chain has a fixed reward schedule. No more coins are being given out. Let's say hypothetically (because it makes the calculation simpler but does not change the result) that half the people are mining bytecoin and half are mining monero. So half are getting the bytecoins and half are getting the monero coins.

After merged mining, assuming both coins retain significant value, everyone will mine both, the difficulty of each will double, and everyone will get half the coins on the chain they were mining before, plus half of the other coins form the other chain.

There are no free coins here. Where would they come from, since the reward output in both chains is fixed?

Listed. Also please see previous post.

Post on my thread please: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=579781.0

Thank you.

"That other coin" is doing a giveaway. I think the threads are only banned if people get paid for posting. If they sign up on a web site or PM, etc. then it is apparently allowed.

Possibly malware causing the p2pool growth?  Look over at the eligius thread. There is apparently someone using a TCP exploit to trick miners into connecting to their own pool. The pool to which people are being redirected could easily be a p2pool node with -f 100 or something similar.

To follow up a bit on the corrupt SD issue, I did not think there was anything writing to the flash during normal operation.

To test this you can turn on debugging of block I/O operations as follows:


Once that is done, any operations that access block devices will be logged to the kernel output, which you can see with


I see no block I/O during normal operation.

If you do these commands with debugging turned on:


you can see I/O occurring as you create the file and delete it. But normally there is none. You will likewise see activity when you change the config files through the web.

Turn off block debugging with


I still don't know why the SD card is getting corrupted, but I can say that it isn't because of writes the SD card during normal operation.

Exactly. This whole deep web, cicada 3301 connection is pure marketing.

Which brings me to "Bytecoin high level API formalized. All the services and stores are strongly recommended to migrate to it" on the web site.

Now given that as you explained above there are not likely to be "stores and services" in existence on the deep web or otherwise, the only reasonable explanation for this statement is that it is intended to falsely convey the impression that there are stores and services.

Once you start to see such clear intent to deceive, it is reasonable to ask how far the deception goes.


At least some aspects of the scam were on purpose.

This is pure speculation but my guess is that the cryptonote people wanted nothing to do with the scam but still wanted to release the technology, so they parted ways with the bytecode people. This further calls into question the claimed 2 year life span.

Do we have a giveaway fund for new users? Good idea? Bad idea?

Seems like its really hard for them to get their first coins on their own with mining now given there is no pool yet.

+1

This has been proposed before as a way to do any kind of bitcoin 2.0. Split and let the market decide which chain to support.

Warning. He has rigged the voting so that anyone who simply downloads the source from github and builds it will be voting in favor of merged mining invisibly and by default.

Please make sure that the "updated" version requires the miner to actually take some action to vote (such as a config option). Having people who simply download and use the latest version automatically and invisibly vote in favor by default makes this concept of voting into a sham.

As I have said on other threads, the idea that you can merge mine or not at your choice and no one loses from having merge mining implemented if they don't want to do it is false. The difficulties will adjust so that those who don't merge mine will get less and everyone is forced to mine both chains to compete.

It is also a myth that it reduces energy usage. People mining one or the other will just mine both, energy usage remains the same. It also does not give additional coins. Again more miners on both chains means the difficulty goes up. Coins awarded remains the same.

I'm very disappointed that TFT is using false arguments like energy savings or more coins to advance this agenda.

That's not true with mixing. The coin goes into the mixer and there is no way to tell whether what comes out represents spending (and where or for what) or just being sent back to another address controlled by the same owner.


I never said it is the same as not reusing addresses. I said it is very nearly the same as distributed mixing and not reusing addresses. Both are required.

Don't get me wrong, I think BCN is very well designed and delivers on its promises. I don't think its the only coin to do that, at least if my understanding of coins with distributed mixers is correct, which it may not be (at least not in their current state).