Everyone on version 1.x.x should update to version 0.8.7.5 (Arngrímur Jónsson) which is the latest.

Downloads can be found on http://auroracoin.is
or https://github.com/aurarad/auroracoin

THIS, AS OF NOW, IS A MANDATORY UPDATE!

We are coming close to the release of our new wallets and the latest release (0.8.7.5) we did was already 6 months ago. To make sure everyone is on the right chain when we release our new version (which will be a hard-fork!) we have now closed the bridge node to the initial (OLD) chain. Please note that if you are sending coins or mine on the old chain (1.x.x) the transactions will no longer be validated on the appropriate one!

- the Auroracoin dev team -

Heute bitcointalk exklusiv
Veröffentlichung der amtlichen Roadmap nach dem Weltuntergang durch Riss im Raum Zeit Kontinuum.

Na klar, bei einem Hardfork tut sich ein Riss im Raum-Zeit-Kontinuum auf und wir werden in ein Paralleluniversum geschleudert.
Weiß doch jeder, tssk

Danke lassdas, für die Info!

Dann verstehe ich aber nicht, wieso sich manche Bitcoin Entwickler dagegen sträuben, die Blockgröße wieder anzuheben! Am Speicherplatz kann es ja nicht liegen, denn der ist doch heute sehr billig geworden!

Dann hat Satoshi das doch schon lange abgesegnet!

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

Einfach die Blocksize von 1MB auf 2 MB zu erhöhen hilft eben nicht dabei, die Skalierbarkeit zu erhöhen.
Die China Miner müssten doch eigentlich auf der Core Seite stehen, da die Core Roadmap der einer crappy Internetverbindung entgegen kommt.
Das Segwit update soll ja angeblich schon im April kommen. Wenn dem so ist, sollte sich Classic erledigt haben.

"Past performance is not an indicator of future performance."  Warren Buffett

Well , I am glad this is over and we can move on to improving the bitcoin ecosystem?

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/a-call-for-consensus-d96d5560d8d6#.3219xm7af

Muss ich mich auch bei ihm bedanken, oder gilt das nur für dich?

Well we have been getting more people involved recently here in Iceland and the word is spreading and I'm pretty confident that these are Icelanders that see what is going on and what is about to happen.

I guess only few players are active in this market (5-15). Most of them, long time holders. Only strong hands left around.

wow.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this moving average graph I found on Bittrex shows that Auroracoin's overall moving average price reached a turning point  minimum on the the 4th of February 2016.

http://imgur.com/wXGnEQ4

Fireduck re-wrote electrum-server in Java and it processes blocks much faster than the original Python version.
See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=726338.0

Correct.  If the price doesn't go up, the miners would jump ship, and the difficulty would fall, essentially creating price/reward equilibrium.  The first halving of BTC was an interesting time, because you saw a shift in mining technology.  I'm pretty sure it's safe to assume that everyone who was mining BTC with GPUs(myself included) before the halving pretty much stopped in the following months when the price was stable.  But the price jumped like 15x shortly after that, and then ASICs hit chain.  So it was a really interesting time for BTC market dynamics.  However, this summer should be a true indication of the effect the halving schedule has on market dynamics.  Even if the increase is gradual, it will be very sharp when looked at from a longer timeline.  Yes, month to month it's not going to look crazy, but over a 3-6 month span I'm almost guaranteeing that you will see a considerable increase in price following the halving. I don't think you'll see enough of a decrease in mining to equalize the price/reward ratio.  Time will tell though which way it will go.

Do you really think the effect of the halving will show itself 'exactly on' of 'right after' the reward halfing?

Of course the effect will be spread out to a period starting well before the halving itself end ending well after it.

Let's look at last time:



I say it was halving-induced. Price went from $5 to ~$125, a 25x increase. So I think my earlier estimation of a 10x increase is conservative under these assumptions.

Geht schon, allerdings erzwingt man dann das Vorhalten der entsprechenden Datenstrukturen zur Verifikation.

Sowas ähnliches?  

SHA3(cat(SHA3(blockheader),  blockhash[SHA3(blockheader) % bestblock], txid[SHA3(blockheader) % num_tx]))

Das müsste man noch genau prüfen - die txid ist vermutlich noch zu einfach. Ziel sollte sein, dass es ohne eine komplette Blockchain nicht berechenbar ist. Gerade der txid Lookup sollte ziemlich sicher ASIC, GPU und auch das Botnet aus dem Rennen werfen. Ein Mining Rig muss damit neben Rechenstärke auch DB Qualitäten besitzen.

Nachtrag: Schlechte Idee wegen Pruning und SPV. Mal weiterüberlegen...

In my mind, economics would predict the hashrate to halve as the reward halves. Essentially the argument would go if the price has not doubled the hashrate must fall."