From the everyday Joe's point of view, decentralised/centralised won't come into it. They won't really understand/care how it works as long as it works. Sorry just the way it is.
I tend to agree with you. It also turned out that most people don't care about anonymity. Not to beat around the bush, that looks like conjecture masquerading as fact - is there any supporting evidence? Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Ground under repairUm, I intended to do something similar with DOACC, might as well pitch in ... Op ListedName includes “dark” (some duplicates of ^^^^)Name includes “dark” and is extinctDescription includes string “anon” (includes some dupes of OP's items and some TOR-enabled coins that don't have a specific “anon” feature) ** which I can filter out but does TOR-enabled equate to “anonymity” in this context?The data would probably be more amenable to categorisation if rendered as as TSV table for a spreadsheet. Edit: TSV available on http://pastebin.com/x9kyjg0aCould probably use a separate listing for “gen 2.0” alts and assets. Cheers Graham
|
|
|
|
I tried it, but now I get the same error at a different spot:
Is that a partial paste? Seems to be missing the first section. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Graham the problem is that without an exchange people can't decide a real price for a coin, which leaves room for speculation to it's limits, anyway i still think that maybe i'm wrong with the fact that a coin without an exchange can survive more then one year but is only because until now i didn't saw a valid example of a coin that is active without an exchange and is on that status from over one year, as soon i will see such a coin i will change my mind
That's the problem with a narrow price-focused perspective, it fails to account for a whole raft of alternative motivating factors that make perfect sense of a strategy to avoid being listed on an exchange. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There are altcoins that have currently-active blockchains, have been running for over a year, are not listed on any exchange that I'm currently aware of and do not appear in the lists that you maintain. You might want to reconsider your position on using coinmarketcap.com's list as authoritative. I finally got round to formalising the list of exchanges that we curate: https://minkiz.co/exchangeIt's all open source semantic web data - I created a corresponding CCE ontology and a graph of individuals in the semweb “ntriples” format. The ontology and graph can be processed identically to the DOACC altcoin metadata - documentation is maintained in a github open source repos as github pages, readable on https://doacc.github.io/ For Minkiz exchange listing, I added a temporary flag (column “oncmc”, orange check) to indicate which of the exchanges are polled by coinmarketcap.com Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Hello, I have been trying to compile Zetacoin. I have overcome a few errors, but this one has been stumped. Any help? rpcrawtransaction.cpp:299:77: required from here
Here's a diff-generated patch that will fix that particular OS-related issue ... --- a/src/rpcrawtransaction.cpp
+++ b/src/rpcrawtransaction.cpp
@@ -296,7 +296,7 @@ Value listunspent(const Array& params, bool fHelp)
CTxDestination address;
if (ExtractDestination(pk, address))
{
- const CScriptID& hash = boost::get<const CScriptID&>(address);
+ const CScriptID& hash = boost::get<CScriptID>(address);
CScript redeemScript;
if (pwalletMain->GetCScript(hash, redeemScript))
entry.push_back(Pair("redeemScript", HexStr(redeemScript.begin(), redeemScript.end())));
HTH Cheers Graham * gjhiggins is too unfamiliar with C++ compiler/architecture variants to suggest a PR |
|
|
|
I think it's possible and necessary to regulate the behaviour of those charged with the stewardship of the project (the people that act as custodians). A project constitution acts as this check on the behaviour of those who work on the project.
I appreciate the appreciation  The peer-to-peer aspect of cryptocurrency has some profound implications for the user group (where user = someone who knows a private key and has occasion to either interact with a web service or run a node directly). From a practical perspective, the bottom line is that as soon as the source code is publicly released no-one is “in charge” of anything. The witticism “herding cats” doesn’t even come in to it; people are completely free to do as they like: run a node, not run a node; hold coins, don't hold coins; set up a foundation, a faucet, a business, promote the coin, fud the coin, set up webwallets, offer an alternative wallet design, provide off-chain features, pay to spam the blockchain, pay to clean up the blockchain, generously contribute to a faucet, mischevously drain a faucet dry. The fact that there is no one person in charge is significant to US financial regulators. A couple of years ago the US FinCEN made it fairly clear ... A final type of convertible virtual currency activity involves a de-centralized convertible virtual currency (1) that has no central repository and no single administrator, and (2) that persons may obtain by their own computing or manufacturing effort.
The thing is, “official” this and “official” that are meaningless in the context of a cryptocurrency because no-one has the authority to stamp anything “official”. Or rather, anyone and everyone has the opportunity to stamp anything they want as “official” or make a claim to be “official panjandrum” but the claim carries no authority, only that which it can engender itself. Regulation cannot be effective because it's simply not possible to identify any individual and in consequence, it's impossible to impose any penalty for breaking regulations. Taking on the role of custodian is purely a voluntary commitment, anyone can do it simply by cloning the codebase and, if they can be bothered, submitting a PR to the claimed “official” repository, otherwise they merely advertise the location of the clone and let people decide for themselves. It's not doom'n'gloom at all, far from it. If you check the set of attributes that pertains to a p2p networked cryptocurrency, you'll find a very close match for the set of attributes that characterises a Teal organisation (search for “Teal organisation”, “Frédéric Laloux”, “Reinventing Organisations”). The main difference is that a cryptocurrency is constrained by the cryptography protocols to be an anarchy (primary definition: “a state of society without government or law”) whereas Teal organisations are expected to evolve from an existing organisation that currently follows the usual strong hierarchical control model. I actually think altcoins make for better Teal organisations because of this. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Maybe you can explain the point...? The link talks about one vote per person being impossible to do on a decentralized cryptocurrency (which is true with today's technology). However, in Decred's design, voting will be weighted by the amount of stake owned (which certainly works...)
The link was to the summary of an extended and detailed discussion of the practicalities of actually trying to get an insight into the community's collective preferences. The discussion starts back on the 24th Nov: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623147.msg13056330#msg13056330 and continues off'n'on over the next three dozen pages. It delineates a particularly unsettling period for the community and is focused on assessing the desirability / acceptability of different potential changes to the coin as future defensive measures. The kernel of the principle is pretty much nailed in dooglus' response to smooth's concerns about centralization: I also believe this can potentially be undermined by "voting" systems that are inherently centralizing (share of voting power is an increasing function of share of stake).
I was talking to Creative about this a couple of days ago. I was voicing my concerns that giving voting power proportional to stake means that the rich get to have their own way at the expense of the poor. As Benjamin Franklin apparently never said: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." I worry that the CLAM rich will vote to disenfranchise the CLAM poor - but Creative points out that the voting system is only a provably fair way of gathering information about consensus. Any change would still be subject to the usual soft-fork rules, requiring a super-majority to be in favour of the fork before it activated. And the "CLAM rich" would have to be pretty short sighted to vote in any change which would be seen as unfair - because that would damage the price of the coin, and so end up affecting them negatively. Adding the ability to express your opinion on-chain in a well-defined way doesn't cause any harm, and allows us to get a clearer view of what the community wants than the current best system we have - that of shouting at each other in forum posts. This perspective was developed further during the discussion. My perception is that setting voting power proportional to stake allows the interests of large stakeholders to dominate the community and overtly advertises that distortion which is an effective means of driving away the smaller, uninfluential stakeholders, leaving the coin moribund. Makes no odds how many coins you have, you can't compel the super-majority of the community to adopt a fork. It’s hardly “voting” if an unpopular outcome can simply be rejected by a super-majority - which is why CLAMS refers to their particular approach to consultation as a “petition”. I note the website asserts: “Project bound by the Decred Constitution”. No it isn't, it's an open source peer-to-peer networked cryptocurrency and people are free to behave as they see fit. The inherent egality of peers and the lack of identity defeat any attempts at coercion, no matter how well-intentioned or otherwise. It seems a bit of a profound misunderstanding to attempt to impose a centralised constitution on a user group that is constrained by the limitations of the cryptographic protocols to be an anarcho-collectivist system (one which envisions the means of production being owned collectively and controlled and managed by the producers themselves). Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
To express that we're risking misleading people is itself misleading. PoS votes in the Decred lottery system can be used to vote for or against a new consensus rule, which allows stakeholders to vote on issues on-chain. Note that it was not claimed that this allows voting on all issues, but changes reflected in consensus code can be voted on.
Either you didn't read the CLAMS post or you completely missed the point. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
LIES, LIES AND MORE LIES, that's my job
Thank you for your candour but really, you needn't have gone to the trouble, it was amusingly clear from the outset. I have to respect the strength of your commitment to the folk tradition of New Year first-fudding but are you sure you read it correctly? You might want to include a BTC address in the future because if you continue to entertain people with your hilariously lame slapstick fud, you might get some tips (it might work even better if you could find a flouncy costume to wear). Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
The total supply of Bunnycoin is just under 98 Billion.
It looks like we'll burn at least 5% of all Bunnycoins this weekend, and 15% of all Unitus.
Will this be reflected in a new total supply figure for market capitalisation calculations? https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bunnycoin/Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
i think we can all agree that a coin without a single exchange doesn't have a lot of possibilities to survive for at least one year
Not that it matters but I disagree. You offer an extremely narrow perspective which holds everyone hostage to an idiosyncratic definition of “survive”. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Hi,
New Year is coming, Datacoin is too :-)
For 10 first persons who post their addresses here I'll give 1000, 900, 800... DTC :-)
Happy new year!
You'd be better advised to think about making that PMs, posting addys now verboten and will cause thread to be deleted. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Notable and sidechain worthy are not the same, some notable firsts, Namecoin - the first appcoin, first altcoin ever Tenebrix - the first altcoin to use scrypt Ixcoin - first premine Freicoin - first to use demurraging Litecoin - largest altcoin Peercoin - first proof of stake Megacoin - new difficulty algo Anoncoin - the first privacycoin Quark - the first chained algo coin Auroracoin - the first country coin Bytecoin - first cryptonote coin Huntercoin - first gamified coin Bitshares - first tiered membership coin Dash - first with instant transactions Etherium - first turing complete FTFY Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Spread those coins!
Spread those loins! FTFY Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
I added another column to Minkiz' listing, an orange check mark to indicate that the exchange appears in coinmarketcap's list. https://minkiz.co/exchangeI've restructured the representation slightly, switching the located-in-jurisdiction field from ISO 2 country codes to the latest ISO country “profiles”. For general consumption, I created a small supporting ontology CCE (CryptoCurrencyExchange) for an initial formalisation of the terms and added it to the DOACC project. The listing of individuals is published separately in the DOACC repository. The methods, tools etc described in the DOACC documentation apply equally to CCE. HTH Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Isn't embeddedness usually referred to as an external force causing inefficiency and false signals?
I hadn't encountered 'Embeddedness' since leaving school; I will need to brush up a bit before I feel comfortable responding.
Not as I understand the general meaning, no. I'll idly paste a chunk of wikipedia instead of actually crafting a response (it is Christmas) .. Mark Granovetter[edit]
Economic Sociologist Mark Granovetter provided a new research paradigm (neo-substantivism) for these researchers. Granovetter argued that the neoclassical view of economic action which separated economics from society and culture promoted an 'undersocialized account' that atomises human behavior. Similarly, he argued, substantivists had an "over-socialized" view of economic actors, refusing to see the ways that rational choice could influence the ways they acted in traditional, "embedded" social roles.
Actors do not behave or decide as atoms outside a social context, nor do they adhere slavishly to a script written for them by the particular intersection of social categories that they happen to occupy. Their attempts at purposive action are instead embedded in concrete, ongoing systems of social relations. (Granovette 1985:487)[2]
Granovetter applied the concept of embeddedness to market societies, demonstrating that even there, "rational" economic exchanges are influenced by pre-existing social ties.[2] In his study of ethnic Chinese business networks in Indonesia, Granovetter found individuals' economic agency embedded in networks of strong personal relations. In processes of clientelization the cultivation of personal relationships between traders and customers assumes an equal or higher importance than the economic transactions involved. Economic exchanges are not carried out between strangers but rather by individuals involved in long-term continuing relationships.
(My emphasis --- and the reason for my interest in the phenomenon) Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
