ok, let me rephrase. any other Sifcoin clones still floatingaround?
Your respondent is correct, up to a point. SIF was the inspiration for the quark folklore combiner and others followed but it's not a clone in that the different combiners use different ranges of algos in different sequential order. I've taken the liberty of labelling the Sifcoin algo “nist6” - i.e. 6 of the NIST algos (as opposed to, e.g. the much later nist5). fixed order: Sifcoin: nist6 = BLAKE, BlueMidnightWish, Grøstl, JH, Keccak, Skein
Chaincoin: c11 = Blake, BlueMidnightWish, Grøstl, JH, Keccak, Skein, Luffa, Cubehash, SHAvite, SIMD, Echo
X11coin: x11 = Blake, BlueMidnightWish, Grøstl, Skein, JH, Keccak, Luffa, Cubehash, SHAvite, SIMD, Echo
varying order Quarkcoin: quark = Blake, BlueMidnightWish, Grøstl|Skein, Grøstl, JH, Blake|BlueMidnightWish, Keccak, Skein, Keccak|JH
Roulettecoin: roulette = SHA2, Blake|BlueMidnightWish|Cubehash|Echo|Fugue|Grøstl|Hamsi|JH|Keccak|Luffa|SHA2|Shabal|SHAvite|SIMD|Skein|Whirlpool
With Quarkcoin, 9 rounds of hashing is performed with three rounds using a random choice of one of the two algos listed With Roulettecoin, the first block is hashed with SHA2, then 16 rounds of hashing are performed sequentially, each using a random choice of one of the set of 16 algos listed Returning to your original question, if I pose the question as a SPARQL query of the DOACC RDF graph: PREFIX doacc: <http://purl.org/net/bel-epa/doacc#>
PREFIX skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#>
SELECT ?node ?name ?symbol ?alg ?date ?status
WHERE {
doacc:D67af5c41-6b6e-40d3-9eba-f4d92b46f71e skos:prefLabel ?alg .
?node doacc:pow doacc:D67af5c41-6b6e-40d3-9eba-f4d92b46f71e .
?node skos:prefLabel ?name .
?node doacc:symbol ?symbol .
?node doacc:incept ?date .
?node doacc:expiration ?status .
} ORDER BY ?name
I get the following results (edited slightly for this context): Notes: 1. Hyperlinks unapologetically point to Minkiz (*) Linked Open Data browser pages, an HTML rendering of the underlying RDF representation 2. The value of the “status” field is, of course, contentious and probably incorrect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| node | name | symbol | alg | date | status |
==========================================================================================================================
| doacc:D569522b5-fbbb-43ab-b2d7-5a94fec35de4| "2CHcoin"@en | "2CH" | "quark"@en | "2014-01" | "listed" |
| doacc:Dbaab6478-32a5-4446-a566-fdad6bcc045d| "Animecoin"@en | "ANI" | "quark"@en | "2014-02" | "listed" |
| doacc:D97533e03-b7ac-4e0d-87a5-d9da5f4aec54| "Atencoin"@en | "ATEN" | "quark"@en | "2014-03" | "unlaunched" |
| doacc:D35879799-9b78-4f1d-a1c8-ae5005e7c37a| "Atomcoin"@en | "ATO" | "quark"@en | "2013-12" | "defunct" |
| doacc:D4578512a-9bf6-4fa8-9652-bd2de049d149| "BMWcoin"@en | "BMC" | "quark"@en | "2014-01" | "extant" |
| doacc:Db261d878-04ad-416e-a405-f418d24709e1| "BitCrystal"@en | "BTCRY" | "quark"@en | "2014-10" | "extant" |
| doacc:Dd7cdae4e-9a74-4fa8-80d8-e8fbfb94d5ca| "BitQuark"@en | "BTQ" | "quark"@en | "2014-03" | "listed" |
| doacc:D1e9d855e-22cf-4cec-9d2b-114fff8edb7a| "Bullcoin"@en | "TBC" | "quark"@en | "2014-01" | "extant" |
| doacc:Dbd6104d8-8812-43ac-b9fe-b11548edd83c| "C-Note"@en | "CNOTE" | "quark"@en | "2014-01" | "listed" |
| doacc:D78ae4222-f6c4-4691-a424-8f0366b75085| "CPU2Coin"@en | "CP2" | "quark"@en | "2013-08" | "defunct" |
| doacc:D3383d987-fc58-4e72-a934-a7de94736df5| "Coinlabcoin"@en | "LAB" | "quark"@en | "2014-06" | "extant" |
| doacc:D97c32c01-e119-4a3d-9232-a1756da86726| "Dimecoin"@en | "DIME" | "quark"@en | "2013-12" | "listed" |
| doacc:D5350c975-610c-473e-b547-7e96afffd37c| "Dougcoin"@en | "DOUG" | "quark"@en | "2014-03" | "extant" |
| doacc:Dc7d0b89a-f7fb-46ab-a856-b5c3532e6776| "Ducats"@en | "DUC" | "quark"@en | "2014-01" | "listed" |
| doacc:D6081cbea-5cb2-4ff1-a120-a542ef64920b| "EasterCoin"@en | "ETR" | "quark"@en | "2014-05" | "extant" |
| doacc:D2cfb1998-cc85-4c04-bcb3-22cfeb5ce3cf| "Fairquark"@en | "FRQ" | "quark"@en | "2014-01" | "listed" |
| doacc:Dde59c79c-d69e-4bd0-a899-49753c8c2cb8| "FrozenCoin"@en | "FZ" | "quark"@en | "2013-12" | "listed" |
| doacc:D3b80124c-50f4-4773-8b97-4f2f5225d8c5| "Internationalcoin"@en | "INC" | "quark"@en | "2014-03" | "extant" |
| doacc:D625963e9-c2ca-4597-9def-2eff6a4fc37e| "KFcoin"@en | "KFC" | "quark"@en | "2014-02" | "extant" |
| doacc:Dd32a8369-1868-4071-a5b4-04f1239bbff3| "Kimcoin"@en | "KMC" | "quark"@en | "2014-04" | "inactive" |
| doacc:D2a5a836e-3579-4f6f-8525-0fa05c35b3e4| "Kumacoin"@en | "KUMA" | "quark"@en | "2014-04" | "listed" |
| doacc:Dea96626d-5f4f-4548-8c27-36995f2915de| "Metacoin"@en | "MET" | "quark"@en | "2014-02" | "defunct" |
| doacc:Dbddc97b3-cb80-41be-a1c2-eb10f65b5cae| "Mimiccoin"@en | "MMC" | "quark"@en | "2014-06" | "extant" |
| doacc:Dd07239ac-9c0c-48e9-bac6-854ef475220e| "Minicoin"@en | "MINI" | "quark"@en | "2014-02" | "extant" |
| doacc:Dbc8ed875-db11-4c53-8505-3c507dae6020| "Molecule"@en | "MOL" | "quark"@en | "2013-05" | "extant" |
| doacc:Dce6a4117-271c-4ab4-bcb8-3cf7b09325c4| "MonetaryUnitcoin"@en | "MUE" | "quark"@en | "2014-09" | "extant" |
| doacc:D789c6bc6-bfd6-4454-b44d-c86e540e5de4| "Monkeycoin"@en | "MKY" | "quark"@en | "2014-02" | "stopped" |
| doacc:D2c829bb2-6727-483f-9176-2ca75b6ecf6c| "Netcoin2"@en | "NET2" | "quark"@en | "2014-02" | "extant" |
| doacc:D34cc64ca-d516-46a3-8e4b-b225fc823b65| "O2oCoin"@en | "O2O" | "quark"@en | "2014-03" | "extant" |
| doacc:Ddf3f3a71-a9d6-4737-9f8a-9eaa08a9d6db| "Oxcoin"@en | "OXC" | "quark"@en | "2014-03" | "extant" |
| doacc:D6c84f4d0-9b18-4498-9aec-4dba3425c3a4| "Particle"@en | "PRT" | "quark"@en | "2013-12" | "listed" |
| doacc:D4ac63f81-ab7f-46f7-a578-63b269ff799f| "Photoncoin"@en | "PHO" | "quark"@en | "2014-01" | "extant" |
| doacc:Dfeb2705b-82d8-4f02-ab15-71a542666846| "Populacecoin"@en | "POC" | "quark"@en | "2014-03" | "inactive" |
| doacc:D8b801923-651c-4acf-89ea-79d31fd8753e| "Probe"@en | "PROBE" | "quark"@en | "2014-04" | "defunct" |
| doacc:D609b63b1-c4d1-4c8d-a2cc-df2d75514c59| "QuarkBar"@en | "QB" | "quark"@en | "2014-03" | "listed" |
| doacc:Df65021e1-dab8-4605-98a7-effc638720fa| "QuarkCoin"@en | "QRK" | "quark"@en | "2013-07" | "listed" |
| doacc:De59358f4-4a72-40f8-84f4-c932c0249237| "RVDCoin"@en | "RVD" | "quark"@en | "2013-12" | "extant" |
| doacc:De8640d5c-82c3-4623-966a-9464a3e1fab3| "Randomquark"@en | "RQC" | "quark"@en | "2014-03" | "extant" |
| doacc:Db0142c92-e92f-4c78-b4be-5b4876001ab1| "Secondscoin"@en | "SEC" | "quark"@en | "2013-12" | "inactive" |
| doacc:D65ce99c6-171c-4a38-8743-2b1a28cd3790| "SecureCoin"@en | "SRC" | "quark"@en | "2013-08" | "listed" |
| doacc:Dd09e203a-0a63-44d3-9906-51e69aa4255a| "Seedbit"@en | "SED" | "quark"@en | "2015-05" | "extant" |
| doacc:D8d78813b-6269-499d-a74f-02e985ba796a| "Sharkcoin"@en | "SAK" | "quark"@en | "2014-05" | "extant" |
| doacc:D520229b8-bbc3-4f15-9b6e-2229d942cb14| "Somacoin"@en | "SOMA" | "quark"@en | "2014-02" | "extant" |
| doacc:Dfed93fb0-aee7-4a94-b4cd-3e08602e8d79| "Unioncoin"@en | "UNC" | "quark"@en | "2013-12" | "listed" |
| doacc:D80ffbd68-904b-41eb-bdfe-c9eea892ecaf| "Vanillacoin"@en | "VLD" | "quark"@en | "2014-01" | "defunct" |
| doacc:Dd93864da-ea92-435b-bcad-a3dca8e988df| "WFPcoin"@en | "WFP" | "quark"@en | "2014-03" | "extant" |
| doacc:D201d5ab5-873a-4bab-ac09-d1faf9dd5af6| "WikiCoin"@en | "WIKI" | "quark"@en | "2014-02" | "listed" |
| doacc:D38f9c514-a2a4-4557-a148-550b4189697f| "Zurcoin"@en | "ZUR" | "quark"@en | "2013-12" | "extant" |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(*) self-signed SSL cert, CA cert, DYOR: archive.orgHTH Cheers Graham Edit: added DOACC url |
|
|
|
Updated digging chart:
Most interesting. I'd be much obliged if you could post the full chart so I could get a sense of the proportion of the recent digging, Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
I really don't get why Joe would do this while publicising his linkedin profile....
If he was as smart as the scam he has apparently committed, surely he wouldn't use his real identity?
Jesus wept, are people that hopelessly naive that they will hand over their money so readily? It's known as the symbol grounding problem, ironically it's a show-stopper for AI and (to anyone with actual experience of working in the domain) is the reason why this project was plainly a fantasy from day 0. Despite all the sound and fury, ungrounded symbols are the only means of referencing the entity identifying itself as Cedric Quotient. The string Joe Mozelesky is no more real than the string Cedric Quotent. This is the way it goes ... Who is behind the Cedric Quotient account? A linkedin account. Who is behind the linkedin account? Rinse and repeat. “Welcome to Limitless Acuity LLC, a boutique technology consulting organization. Learn more about us and our methodology.” http://www.limitlessacuity.com <- the domain fails to resolve. Remember, remember, just last November Don’t be so keen Remember Alex GreenFeeling experimental Remember Ryan Gentle No need to wail a threnody If you remember Ryan Kennedy Remember, remember, be careful my spender The problem with ungrounded symbols is: the map is not the territoryThe expression "the map is not the territory" first appeared in print in a paper that Alfred Korzybski gave at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in New Orleans, Louisiana in 1931
(I strongly urge you to read the (fairly short and quite accessible) wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation) Steven Harnad formulated the issue as it applies to AI as the “symbol grounding problem”. The wikipedia entry is a bit of a mess, for a more articulate and comprehensive review, see Taddeo and Floridi's paper “Solving the Symbol Grounding Problem: a Critical Review of Fifteen Years of Research”. (The date of the paper is 2005, so we better make that “Twenty five Years of Research” because it’s a fundamental problem in AI that remains unsolved). After you’ve understood the problem, you will also understand the vacuity of claims of AI on the blockchain and why attempts to imbue clones of Bitcoin with autonomy are inevitably doomed to failure because the notion is profoundly misconceived. One huge giveaway to the vacous nature of the project was the reference to “singularity”. I call it “the bucket of frogs fallacy” because in essence the claim is no different from - chuck enough frogs into a large enough bucket and they will combine somehow to form a giant frog. It’s the same screamingly obvious fallacy as “We have a month to produce a baby, find me nine women.” Intelligence is neither additive nor multiplicative, far from it. At scale, it’s subtractive; all the earnestly-defended fantasies in this entire thread stand as proof of that. Different domain, same problem (from gizmodo on Ashley Madison): Overall, the picture is grim indeed. Out of 5.5 million female accounts, roughly zero percent had ever shown any kind of activity at all, after the day they were created.
The men’s accounts tell a story of lively engagement with the site, with over 20 million men hopefully looking at their inboxes, and over 10 million of them initiating chats. The women’s accounts show so little activity that they might as well not be there.
Sure, some of these inactive accounts were probably created by real, live women (or men pretending to be women) who were curious to see what the site was about. Some probably wanted to find their cheating husbands. Others were no doubt curious journalists like me. But they were still overwhelmingly inactive. They were not created by women wanting to hook up with married men. They were static profiles full of dead data, whose sole purpose was to make men think that millions of women were active on Ashley Madison.
Ashley Madison employees did a pretty decent job making their millions of women’s accounts look alive. They left the data in these inactive accounts visible to men, showing nicknames, pictures, sexy comments. But when it came to data that was only visible on to company admins, they got sloppy. The women’s personal email addresses and IP addresses showed marked signs of fakery. And as for the women’s user activity, the fundamental sign of life online? Ashley Madison employees didn’t even bother faking that at all.
But there's no helping some people ... Real AI development is going on under SuperNET only
Come little fishes, swim to me. Nom, nom, nom. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
A reasonably complete analysis of the coinmarketcap pages stored on archive.org suggests that it's closer to 30%. List of “decapped” coins (no longer listed on coinmarketcap), each with a hyperlink to the corresponding bct thread. Corrections welcomed. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Gjhiggins
The project has not yet been commercially launched, and does not operate.
Thank you for the clarification. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
For the benefit of those who might be unfamiliar with the UK government's relaxed attitude to new businesses: https://www.rapidformations.co.uk/additional-services/london-registered-office/Registered Office
Covent Garden, London £49.00 per year
What you get:
A London WC2 address as your registered office.
All official mail forwarded to you free of charge.
Your new London registered office:
Your Company Name
71–75 Shelton Street
Covent Garden
London
WC2H 9JQ
The fact that the web site is hosted in Poland does not circumvent the UK regs: A UK business cannot however escape the terms of the Regulations simply by locating its servers outside the UK. The Regulations look at where a business is established, not where its equipment is based and state that they apply "... irrespective of whether that information society service is provided in the United Kingdom or another [EU] member State".
In passing, I note that the all of the associated Tripcoin cryptocurrency service businesses (the ones positioned to receive your money) are advertised as using .pl domains which suggests that those businesses may not be subject to the UK government’s not-at-all-relaxed attitude to the regulation of money-handling business. Just for the record, the UK has specific regulations pertaining to the information required of web sites of UK-based businesses, as usefully listed by a web agency ( http://www.northstar-website-design.com/resources/website_regulations.html): Website regulations and how they effect you
If you are business in the UK with a website, new legislation has become law (January 1, 2007), which if you don't comply, will leave you will in breach on the Companies Act and risking a fine.
Although this law was primarily aimed at e-commerce sites, it is applicable, and enforceable to virtually every website. The easiest way to think of it is that your website is has the same requirements as your letter headed stationery / invoice.
Although a more comprehensive article is listed below, and links for further reading, I would advise that the following details should be posted clearly on your site:
The service provider's name (not the trading name) needs to be prominent and accessible.
The service provider's email address has to be given, contact forms are not sufficient.
The service provider's geographic address must be given (PO Box are not allowed)
If the business is a company, the registered office address and registration number must be included.
If the business has memberships of a trade or professional associations, the membership details, including registration numbers, should be provided.
VAT registered companies must display their number.
Note the date of the legislation: 2007. Any company in breach of the Act can be reasonably interpreted as having failed basic standards of business operations and should be considered as having incompetent management. The Tripcoin web site provides no contact details, no T&Cs, no privacy statement, no VAT registration number. This is in breach of EU directives on e-commerce. It seems none of the basic consumer protection features are place. It's impossible to determine whether that's a result of careful design or just basic ineptitude. I usually don’t bother trying. An altcoin poem for the UK ... Remember, remember, just last November Don’t be so keen Remember Alex GreenFeeling experimental Remember Ryan Gentle No need to wail a threnody If you remember Ryan Kennedy Remember, remember, be careful my spender Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Star Wars expanded universe
Thanks for clarifying. If you haven't already, you might want to edit the OP to make it quite clear to invitees. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
CIYAM's "specification" document is wrong as well as imprecise, ATs in themselves are not Turing complete and scarequotes won't make it so.
Please point out exactly (technically) what is wrong as well as imprecise as just saying that something is *wrong as well as imprecise* doesn't make it so.  I did, in the post, quoting specifically. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
just a broad industry index
Would that it was quite so straightforward as that. The integrity of such an index would be ultimately reliant on the collective integrity of exchange owners. wikipedia definition: “In economics and finance, an index is a statistical measure of changes in a representative group of individual data points. These data may be derived from any number of sources, including company performance, prices, productivity, and employment.” Altcoin exchanges are not subject to regulation and the impact of this is that there's no trustworthy canonical list either of exchanges or of trades and so the completeness and accuracy of the data is unreliable to an indeterminate degree. Any definition of “representative” can only be developed with reference to this unreliable data. The statistical measures of change would be based on this hoped-to-be-representative group of unreliable data points. Still interested? Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
if you would actually read http://ciyam.org/at. I don't know who is saying the at's aren't turing complete....whoever is saying that needs to go and rtfm Unfortunately, the only description that either DDG ( https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Turing+site%3Aciyam.org) or I can find in the CIYAM docs is gibberish: http://ciyam.org/at/at.html Automated Transactions Specification In brief an Automated Transaction is a "Turing complete" set of byte code instructions which will be executed by a byte code interpreter built into its host.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness Turing completeness In colloquial usage, the terms "Turing complete" or "Turing equivalent" are used to mean that any real-world general-purpose computer or computer language can approximately simulate the computational aspects of any other real-world general-purpose computer or computer language.
Most programming languages, conventional and unconventional, are Turing-complete. This includes:
All general-purpose languages in wide use.
...
Turing completeness is an abstract statement of ability, rather than a prescription of specific language features used to implement that ability. The features used to achieve Turing completeness can be quite different; Fortran systems would use loop constructs or possibly even goto statements to achieve repetition; Haskell and Prolog, lacking looping almost entirely, would use recursion.
CIYAM's "specification" document is wrong as well as imprecise, ATs in themselves are not Turing complete and scarequotes won't make it so. The document, if it aspires to meet the requirements of a specification, should contain the precise details of the features ensuring Turing completeness of the programming language in which the ATs are expressed. I can understand why people might want to distinguish sharply between ATs and a Turing complete scripting language. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
In my opinion the main core is the idea, the brand idea. I understand you are very fond of programming and are focused on the sole IT aspect, but try to wide your horizons and be patient with an ignorant as me   Typically, I don’t offer opinions. I do make an effort to confine my postings to just the facts. In this instance, I pointed out some facts in order to dispel some misperceptions about the origin of the codebase. Whilst I don’t disagree with your perception of the importance, even primacy, of a strong brand identity with clear brand values and that the Star Wars brand is both exciting and appealing, the brand is not your property to exploit. “I understand you are very fond of programming and are focused on the sole IT aspect” <- you have an incorrect understanding. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Did you download the blockchain with the same Linux version or via Wine/Windows?
I'm currently trying out SLMv0.4.1-alpha-5-g99cd1db-alpha, but it gets stuck at the same blocks as the 0.3.2.1. (now, on infamous block 311792)
At least in this instance (after several unsuccessful attempts to get the linux node to read the blockchain db) the key factor turned out to be the presence of a blkindex.dat. Piqued by the code's obstinate refusal to boot off the blockchain file, I reverted to my original brutal approach, firing up Slimcoin (v0.3.2.0-2-g53d7c33-alpha) under wine, allowing it to sync, shutting it down and copying the entire datadir to the linux server. The linux node then synched on startup and has remained in synch thus far. Having to supply an existing blkindex.dat as a workaround is lame but the success of the tactic is instructive. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Idiots..
Yup, an offensive address will be the most effective way of getting the message across. It may not be the intended message however. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
First slimcoind.exe successfully compiled!
Unfortunately, that's not necessarily a working wallet. The Windows binaries that I have recently compiled from the 0.4 source exhibit the same problems with syncing as do the linux versions -- which is usefully revealing of the recent origin of the issue but also a clear indication that more fixes are required. I've made repeated efforts to get binaries compiled from the latest sources to sync. AFAICT, the only current practical means of achieving that is to fire up the windows 0.3.1 binary under wine and leave it synching for a night / day+night, whatever and, when synced, simply cp -R the entire Application Support/SLIMcoin datadir over to ~/.slimcoin and then fire up the linux binary. Now that I have a current blockchain, I can confirm that my linux 0.4.2 version (candidate for release) basically works in that it successfully reads the blockchain and stays in sync. I'm now trying to mine a block in order to check functionality. I should now be able to set up a reliable, known (and accessible to me) current node on my Linux server to use as a feed for my local debugging of the synching problem. I now have full triangulation and (with a following wind) should be able to work out where the problem originates. A working Windows version beckons, as do working Linux and OSX versions (assuming that I can persuade Ngaio’s iBook that it’s up to the task). On a related matter, does anyone have any insights into the likelihood of an interaction between the PoB implementation and the operation of coin control? I'd like to take a wander down the peerunity theme branch but it has coin control which the current Slimcoin codebase predates. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
just use the check for node version it will state if its XT or not
Is that tactic independent of the recently rendered unreliability? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154520.0It prevents correct detection of Bitcoin XT adoption in the wild since usage will be known to have been tampered with and thus all statistical data gathered by getnodes can only be considered unreliable.
Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Sigh. Thanks to all who believed in us! we have successfully managed to sell all our coins on your pumps based on the hype we created,
I will send a picture of my holiday! ICO = Scam!
thanks for paying for my holiday!
when will you guys learn!
We will create another coin soon and because everyone never learns, we will also make a killing from it! and you will never know.
hopefully IBITS will get kicked off bittrex soon as it is taking up my server space ;-)
Thanks noobs!
Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Info snaffled from devcoin thread giving rationale for upgrading : Notable changes per release: 0.9.0: https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.9.0 - windows 64 bit installer, autotools build system, bitcoin-cli changes 0.10.0: https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.10.0 - Faster synchronization, Transaction fee changes, RPC access control changes, REST interface, improved signing security, watch-only wallet support, and more 0.11.0: https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.11.0 - Block file pruning, memory usage optimization, improved fee estimation, improved privacy Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
