Has anybody figured out why this is happening? I can't find anything in the OS that writes to the file system.

It isn't really that different from coins with distributed mixers and not reusing addresses. I don't really follow blackcoin, but doesn't it do that?

I find "anonymous" to be a vague term and not very useful. Different systems have different properties as to what information is disclosed and to whom. How that translated to "anonymous" often depends on how it is used and what "anonymous" is taken to mean.

Sure it does, in your model (which is correct in my opinion), you are being paid in BTC to provide a service. This ends up having the same effect as applying the original guidance to solo mining (income at the time of mining, then capital gain/loss if and when sold).


This is likely true to a large extent, but what you posted above does not demonstrate it.

In any case, to answer the OP, you should talk to an accountant. If the equipment has a useful life of less than a year, you do not put it on a depreciation schedule (publication 946, page 6). Even if for some reason you put it on a depreciation schedule, when you dispose of the property you can deduct the unappreciated value as a further loss. This ends up being about the same.

Finally you may be able to take a section 179 deduction for the equipment and expense it that way instead of depreciation (but again, not if it doesn't have a useful life of more than a year).

The tax laws are arbitrary and often dumb, but in this case it isn't that bad.

There is broader commonality among languages than that. For example, Russian is not normally described as Latin-based, yet its terms for money and coin are also similar.

Universal is certainly not true though, you are right about that.

We can't verify the claim that any of this happened two years ago. The earliest existence we can verify is a few months ago.

If you want to restate your claim based solely on verifiable facts, then we can address it.

BTW, ring signatures are 15 years old and Diffie-Hellman is even older. There is no new or unknown cryptography here, although that makes the actual coin more innovative (and also more trustworthy), not less. The same can be said about bitcoin.


It is apparently becoming valuable now, I agree. That is only because of the substrate that is being built here. An unknown coin is a worthless coin, and as I said, there is no large deep web economy based on this coin. The very concept is impossible, but even if it weren't you can infer the value of the coin (and therefore infer a lot about the value of its economy) from the hash rate in the block chain, and both are extremely low.

I frankly doubt that its used for much of anything (yet). No exchanges, no real "outside" buyers, etc. BTC worked/works for SR, etc. because you could take those BTCs that you sold your "stuff" for and use them for other things, and because people wanting to buy that "stuff" could buy BTC to use.

The idea that BCN is being used for some large evil economy defies logic.

I do agree that the developers might have what you said in mind when they (maybe) started two years ago, but it would have required BCN to succeed widely in addition to all that evil stuff. The evil stuff can't support an economy on its own. It didn't happen though, all that happened is a premine.

For one thing, if you're doing a code fork, it's less work to keep the existing PoW. That wouldn't necessarily be a reason to not change for a good reason, but it is a reason to not change without a reason.

We don't even know it was two years. Technically all those blocks could have been created in a short time by someone with enough hash power (and it isn't even really that much). The problem with all this lack of transparency is that you really can't trust anything about it.

I call it a ninja premine because for either reason, the name fits. If they mined for two years, then they are good at staying hidden. If they mined in a few days or weeks and then launched with this unverifiable story about a two year history in the deep web, then they are experts in disguise and deception.

Any change to the emissions schedule is a hard fork, but some are much easier sells than others. While I don't agree that the reverse stock split is "taking coins away" I definitely understand that people will see it that way and it will be hard to accomplish realistically, so we should do something else.

I donated as well. BCN giveaway fund should be pretty healthy now

We have no idea what the substrate is, if there even is one. With regard to the bytecoin development community, so far I've seen one fix from monero get pulled back to bytecoin, and little if anything going in the other direction. If there are stores, exchanges, etc. for bytecoin, then let's hear about that. Failing that, there is no substrate. It is all a mirage.

But like you I am mining both and taking a wait and see attitude. I think monero has just a whole lot more legitimacy and transparency at this point, and that counts for a lot. Just the fake cicada 3301 references are enough to convince me there is an element of scam to bytecoin, but those could possibly done by someone with no real connection, so we can't be sure. It smells bad though.

If you can demonstrate that actually happened, that might make a difference to perception. So far all we have a web site that appeared a few months ago and the claim that it has existed for two years. For all we know someone with a botnet mined all those blocks in a day and put fake dates on them. It would be a very clever and possibly effective way to premine 80% of a coin if you ask me. Like a ninja.

Talk is cheap. Show evidence.

Realistically it seems like it is going to be hard to ever get ageement on the reverse stock split idea, so we'll likely have to do something else, or nothing. My favored plan is to move the reward curve out and then temporarily reduce the current rewards until the total drops to match the new curve, but there are other ideas being thrown around.

This was never explained. TFT thought it was a good idea, so he did it. No discussion or technical justification was given. 

According to the white paper the penalty-free block size is supposed to grow with 110% of the median block size. I haven't checked in the code to see if that is implemented correctly.

I did notice that the code for selecting transactions to include a block isn't very intelligent and can be improved. I guess that won't matter much until there are more transactions, and at that point it should be an easy fix.

The payout graphs for p2pool show payout per block. If the pool grows and therefore finds more blocks and your hash rate stays constant then you get less per block, but the same amount overall.

Graphs showing estimated payout per day would be good to add. Those would not decline if the pool grows, which I agree creates a perception problem when users don't understand what is going on.

tacotime already answered most of this but I'd add:


Important point. This is not a rename of BCN. BCN was made public with 80% already mined. This coin was made as a fork of BCN to have a clean launch with no premine, no IPO, no block fee, etc.


Fantastic suggestion. New users shouldn't have to wade through all the discussion just get help, especially given the rough state of the software.

Also it is said to be close to the word for money/coin/currency in many other languages.

If you guys traded please let me know for the ticker

Now 10m BCN trade reported

The concept is frankly absurd. Out of a total of 18 million coins, only about 170 000 have been mined so far.