leasing balance for forging
Sounds like a good idea, but please; no java coins.  Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
Whatever everyone decides (assuming it will be fair), I hope its the right answer.
|
|
|
|
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.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that just mean if -YOU- decide to do the update and fork? Because you have [ control ] of the majority amount of clam? Maybe I'm wrong, I'm not 100% sure of all facts. But its been the way I've been understanding this. |
|
|
|
The staking pool is going strong, now with a balance of >7000 CLAMs, approaching 1% of the staking supply, which should allow us to stake 10+ times per day (once all the coins in the pool sufficiently mature) to ensure consistent stake rewards for pool members, plus of course helping to decentralize the network. Thanks to dooglas for helping out on an issue with the -staketo option. Pool thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1200703.0Nice .. its good to see some things branching off like this. It would be nice if it could be done just through the network (some kind of proxy staking) somehow, again to avoid giving someone *control* (not ownership) over your clams. |
|
|
|
if they're worth 40cents with one useful clambiz (justdice) they'll be worth 3x that with two, and 5x that with 3. its exponential
Why would they be worth 3x with 2 places to use clam? And why 5x with 3 places? Because then they won't be so centralized & controlled [even though not owned] by one entity. I'm understand that. I'm just questioning the claim that with 2 places to use clam, the price will be worth 3x the price. Decentralization is a very valuable "feature". |
|
|
|
if they're worth 40cents with one useful clambiz (justdice) they'll be worth 3x that with two, and 5x that with 3. its exponential
Why would they be worth 3x with 2 places to use clam? And why 5x with 3 places? Because then they won't be so centralized & controlled [even though not owned] by one entity. |
|
|
|
|
My previous post was about not doing updates.
That method won't work considering where the majority of clams are sitting.
Whoever made the point about who has *control* (not ownership) of clams was right.
|
|
|
|
I see the same dispute over the original idea that I have always seen in that there is always someone saying that the original idea should be stuck to but the truth is that it doesn't matter because ideas change and evolve over time, what was thought to be a good idea may not be in retrospect.
Ok so that's like saying... meh today we hate gold and gold should be worth nothing. Let's change our thinking, just consider it that way and yep its worthless. What a bunch of bs. If real trust is to be established, don't fck around with what you originally intended and what original value is being placed on. One the main parts of this coin is how it was distributed. |
|
|
|
|
Doesn't cheaper clams just mean more people can afford more to gamble with -- which in turn equals more people interested and playing??
Just trying to bring up a brighter, positive side.
|
|
|
|
That's my point. Anyone with a nugget of trading smarts could have squeezed much more money out of the community over time than the digger has. Ergo, malicious intent.
You're so smart. Good for you. Not everyone has trading smarts like you to know how to increase the money supply by 50% without dropping the price. But awesome that you do. If you ever get the chance, you can manipulate the market better. Be happy that I did not manipulate the market. Would you have preferred that I pumped and dumped the coin? And made more money from this? Jeez... ^ Its' probably just some crappy kid in his mom's basement that doesn't know fcksh**T about markets. Give them a break.. crypto is the wild west .. can't handle the heat get outta the kitchen my .02 crypto |
|
|
|
|
Due to the nature of new technology and what we've seen with cryptocurrencies - if you can't handle the price swings, you shouldn't be in it; period.
Stop whining like little bitches.
Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
This scenario is the best for everyone except the digger. The coins are getting distributed at a much lower price. So be thankful he fucked up. Place your orders at 100k, 80k, 50k, 25k or whatever and wait until he runs out of CLAM.
^ This. This is the way the coin was originally designed with its distribution. Things are as they should be, I agree if people don't like this coin - then find something else more suited to you. But to go changing parameters now is just crazy and will only lead to less confidence in the coin. (How many more times will things change??) |
|
|
|
On number two, have you defined a custom change address? Not sure, but that could explain it.
No.. well I created new addresses and named them. But like I said, I've noticed in other wallets that it seems like they give the "head" address name that was staked with. I would provide a screenshot but its in my other computer. |
|
|
|
|
Some things I've noticed that might be small bugs.
This is on v0.9.8.5 compiled under Linux, Ubuntu Trusty
1. The stake weight doesn't seem to update much when you hover over the "axe picks" icon.
I have to restart the wallet in order for correct current weight number to show.
2. When I get a stake, if you've given names to addresses... it doesn't show the name associated with the address. Just says (n/a).
Other wallets I stake with will display the (account/address) name.
|
|
|
|
The title of this thread is simply false. Its' not 100% solved, nor will it ever be. To say something is simply so difficult, it might as well be "solved" is just a pseudo assumption. Press usually likes to report on facts, that is why imo.. there is no press release saying its solved. This thread is pointless and OP talks in circles.  |
|
|
|
As the OP I'm not attempting FUD my understanding is Double spend was solved......so should we see it more as so difficult the possibility is negligible?
Do you have any proof or anything that JC claimed that? I'm hearing from people who talk with him, and he never claimed that. |
|
|
|
Its an issue because by claiming these things shows a lack of understanding of information theory at its most basic, or highlights some potential dishonesty.
Ah this whole thing is a fud attempt. I found out that he didn't claim to have solved it! Uggh trolls. |
|
|
|
Because it isn't easy to do even with a moderate duration of attack window, and so is not worth the time and effort to prove something is false that can not be true in the first place due to accepted laws of physics.
You make it sound as if nobody is going to try and to this due to the difficulty, and not being "worth it". So why is this even really an issue? Maybe it isn't solved per se, but it may be that its even *more* difficult to do with this coin. I'm guessing people are looking for evidence of that? |
|
|
|
Thus, there are always periods of time, no matter how short, where A and B are not consistent with each other. An attacker can take advantage of this window of time and cause disruption.
Then why are people not exploiting that and double spending? Please prove by doing a double spend. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
