New coins might be why people are at cryptsy but many people are here because alt coins are an ancient and venerable breed of coins that have been around for years.

It is still even called the Alternate cryptocurrencies section not the scam of the day crappy clone forum.

-MarkM-

There was some proposed scrypt miner thingie that did propose to control which coins you could mine somehow. Dunno if it was this one though.

-MarkM-

Sending good money after bad doesn't seem helpful at all.

It could even weaken the lesson that might otherwise potentially be learnable from your experience.

"I throw money away by being useless at holding it / storing it, please send me some to hold / store" ...

-MarkM-

I was wrong about needing the whole chain: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=106373.msg4585334#msg4585334

You are right that they need to traverse from genesis of the colour though.

Miners can only verify colours they know about.

I suspect that coloured coins are only practical at all thanks to no one having to know about / track any colours other than the few or many or millions that they are interested in.

How much extra information and processing does each colour involve?

How much more effective would spamming colours be than spamming ordinary transactions?

From that, how much fee will creating a colour need to have to adequately pay for all the excess storage and lookups?

Do miners need to go find the contract of each colour or its kernel definition or whatever?

Do they only do that once then store it forever, or do they need to periodically check that it has not been superceded or altered etc?

A "catalogue of many or most of the colours ever used" site/server might be a massive service all on its own, it is reasonable to expect all miners to in effect subsume all the info from all such sites about al colours in order to mine?

Does such info maybe even get put into the blockchain to eliminate the need to go look at third party URLs to find the kernel for the colour?

What happens if someone gets a miner to record information about a colour into the blockchain then changes the data at the URL after the blockchain already processed the colour in accordance with the colour-kernel the prior state of the URL had claimed that colour uses?

What do the current coloured coin developers say about these kinds of questions?

It seems to me one could easily break a nicely working high security blockchain by trying to jam coloured coin client stuff into its mining algorithms.

Normally coloured coin clients in effect do their own "mining" in the sense of verifying transactions.

Also, what do you even mean by invalid coloured coin transactions? Aren't all possibilities accounted for, typically by resolving to erasure/loss of colour? So that maybe what you are thinking is an invalid colour-transaction is actually a perfectly valid uncolouring?

-MarkM-

I have cable modem and I find often when a coin is getting a blockchain or delivering one to someone else my line chokes up so bad I cannot even do nameserver lookups to find the IP address of a name let alone actually get a webpage if my browser already knows the IP address, maybe sometimes a small page I can get but often the webserver just gives up trying to send me the page and resets the connection.

So if you already have one blockchain being gotten maybe that could be it.

My dedicated server when I first tried to set up merged mining I had all the coins started at boot, which choked up the whole machine so bad it would crap out before booting. Even putting five minute delays between coin startups didnt fix it as they all wanted to start catching up on the chain in those first forty minutes or whatever.

Though maybe that case might have been a RAM thing more than bandwidth maybe.

Though you are accessing the forum. Hmm. Maybe only because devcoin did stop getting the blockchain?

The purpose of putting a packaged blockchain on a download site (like in the "put it on devcoin.org" suggestion earlier) is so people can grab the whole chain as a simple download with no verifying needed as its just a browser doing a download then fire up the coin with the blockchain already sitting there on their disk waiting to be verified by their client. Heck bitcoin even has a torrent for the blockchain.

-MarkM-

Maybe the so called selfish mining attack?

Maybe the most likely is a preconfigured keylogger and wallet stealer?

-MarkM-

What school? What class? Is there a contact number for the school so people can check you have the Principal's permission, that you do in fact work there and so on?

Its amazing what scammers come up with nowadays.

To turn the world upside down it must be a very influential school. How many students? In what grades? Are they of some obscenely privileged social class or something? Beverley Hills 90210 or suchlike?

Have you ever heard of such a thing as a "testnet" ?

Since you mention giveaway threads, how about teaching the kids about internet forums and have them learn how to post in giveaway threads?

-MarkM-

No mention of misbehaving neighbors in the log though?

As one reason for dropping neighbors is thinking they are feeding bad data, if so it might even say what it thinks is wrong with the data they are feeding it.

Is your computer clock set from a network clock or might it be out of synch? There is an alert of sorts for that in the daemon's RPC call outputs but I don't know what a GUI client might do with such alerts, would it display them prominently or just put them in the log for you to fidn when you check the log?

Did it say it dropped them or that they dropped it aka it lost connection / connection was terminated by the other end?

I wonder if all seed nodes might have reached their maximum number of incoming connections?

dvcstable01.dvcnode.org has been offline for days waiting for a new motherboard so that is one less seed node the last few days.

-MarkM-

Have the german language people translated the English phrases that include new English words such as Devcoin into whatever the German for Devcoin would be?

(I am thinking maybe it only seems to say bitcoin because the german word for bitcoin happens to look so much like the English word for bitcoin, aka that the problem is not in the code but in the language files that maybe have not been translated yet. I wonder if the gender of devcoins is the same as the gender for bitcoins? Do all coinages and currencies have the same gender? Do words starting with D have the same grammatical requirements as those that start with B? In English for example we have a versus an depending on the initial letter of the word that follows. I learned from making Battle for Wesnoth scenarios that you often cannot just plug in words and expect them to work in other languages, the translators may have to change things around entirely in some languages when a noun or gender or whatever changes.)

-MarkM-

Is there something about the block it sticks on that is different from normal or something?

Like is it maybe the first block in which some newfangled set of fees happened to actualyl get into a block or something?

Does the log give any indication that it is seeing anything awry? Misbehaving nodes or anything like that?

The log is there for a reason, if you think something might be going wrong the log would be the first place to look.

Also the system's own logs maybe in case some firewall throttle is happening or something.

Heck who knows maybe even the internet provider has decided it seems to be some kind of stream and is not coming from a source thery have a special deal with so under the new no-equality internet they want to suppress it. Or maybe they think it is file-sharing and they are helping prevent piracy by messing with it.

Is the log even moving at all or frozen? How many connections at the time? Does the number of connections fall off, such as it might if it thinks everyone out there is misbehaving?

-MarkM-

A 2% pre-mine in which one block of a coin that mints 100 coins per block would be two coins pre-mined.

If all 100 of the coins in that block were pre-mined that would be a 100% pre-mine.

So for example if the code forces the first block to have 102 coins instead of the normal 100 coins, that would be a 2% pre-mine.

If the code forces 10100 coins to come into existence in the first block instead of the normal 100 coins on a 100 coins per block coin, that is a 10,000% pre-mine...

Sure after a nubmer of years that might dilute down so much it will by the time no more coins are beign minted appear in retrospect to be a smaller percent but the future doesn't exist, there is only the now...

Another way to look at it is to check how many blocks had been mined 24 hours after the launch.

We know how many blocks the coin pretends it is supposed to have per minoute or hour or day, so any more than one day's worth of blocks beign in existence at the end of 24 hours indicates how many block-days (days as measured in blocks, given the block time the coin pretends to have) of pre-mining occured by the time 24 hours had passed since launch.

Bitcoin is pre-mining a few days every two weeks right now by that method of measurement!

When bitcoin began it was not pre-mined, but as GPUs then FPGAs and now ASICs came along more and more retroactive pre-mining has been happening!

(In case you don't get it, multiply ten minutes by the block number. To get to this block number in that amount of time when would Satoshi have had to have started mining?)

-MarkM-

I didn't say I saw any problems, I just don't see what native is meant to be nor what it will buy us.

Plain old coloured coins run on any blockchain, with no modifications to the blockchain, the normal clients, miners, and so on.

No problems there, for people willing to run full nodes, that is, to have the entire blockchain themselves.

If going native will somehow let people do it without needing the whole blockchain but without having to trsut some third party's server then hey maybe that might be what going native is intended to buy us.

Or maybe native is just marketing-speak propaganda that really just means we'll be using coloured coin clients as our notmal default clients so that it will seem as if colour is native to the coin simply because we never use the coin with a client that doesn't know about colour.

Right now coloured coin clients seem to be based on Armoury. Maybe the intent is to build a QT based coloured coin client so the client can look like normal QT based coin-clients yet, unlike other coins that haven't copied the code yet into their QT clients, it has colour "built in". (To the client. Not the coin/blockchain.)

So maybe the first question is, is native to mean native to the reference client / default client / recommended client / standard daemon / main daemon used by pools nodes whatever, or is it to mean hacking at the actual coin/blockchain (and if so, are we talkign about a "forking change" and if so is it a "hard fork"?)

If it is a hard fork it is in a way not IXCoin at all, it is a change-over from IXCoin to some new similar coin that has colour somehow in the protocol or blockchain directly and has everyone's coins still at the same addresses they were at in the IXCoin that existed prior to the block number at which the hard fork goes into effect.

(Bitcoin tends to allow two years for a hard fork to go into effect. Not sure how fast would be too fast for IXCoin if for some reason a hard fork of IXCoin was desperately required. Maybe the block at which block rewards stop would be a logical block at which to have any hard fork go into effect if one is for some reason urgently needed?)

-MarkM-

Oh wonderful another financial institution dealing with other people's money run by one kid.

What could possibly go wrong?

Ah well at least the kid is broke, so at least he or she won't be losing much money on it...

-MarkM-

Miners need not even know. They can just go on mining as they normally do.

The only difference to them is there should be more transactions happening thus more fees.

They would need a coloured coin client to be able to track which transactions involved colours and which colours they involved.

That is why i do not understand what "native" coloured coins is even supposed to mean.

Colouring is a whole distinct thing the blockchains need not know about.

The coloured coin clients though need to be able to track the entire blockchain I think. No "thin clients" unless they are prepared to (blindly?) trust some real client somewhere to say what is what.

Haven't you read any of the coloured coin people's sites and threads and such?

-MarkM-

Click the "old revisions" link at top of page (not sure if you need to be logged in?) and usually only one person will have done most of the revisions, with maybe sometimes someone else having done a spelling or typo fix here and there when they were easing the article and noticed a grammer spelling or etc type of minor obvious error.

Annoyingly though their name is not presented as a clickable link to their homepage where their list of articles would be.

Meanwhile, back to the auctions site idea: are any of the available off the shelf free open source auction packages able to do this type of auction?

-MarkM-

Such a site probably requires very good knowledge of your traffic.

You need a certain number of bids on any given item just to break even on that item, so you need to know how much traffic you can drive how fast and how much of it statistically will actually bid - or even be able to bid if it takes a while for them to read all about it decide they want to buy some bids go get the right kind of cash to buy bids with, have it confirmed enough times on its blockchain, and still manage to get in a bid before the auction closes.

Maybe a lot of lead time would be good, like have the first feature of the site be the ability to buy bids, with the knowledge the first auction will be in a month, or in 90 days or whatever, with the price of bids going up constantly as the time of the first auction approaches and a foreknowledge of what things will be up for auction based on how many bids have been sold by the time the actual auctions go live.

Like...

Day one, wow, we only just started, buy bids today for only X coins, if in 90 days when the auctions open at least Y bids have sold a share of devcoins (worth 1000 words or 40 hours of work, truly, check out our page about devcoin shares) will be the first auction!

Day two, wow, we already sold so many bids we already know one share of devcoin distribution will be the first auction, that is only 89 days from now folks! Today bids cost X2 each and if by the time auctions go live we have sold Y2 total bids then the second auction will be for one share of devcoins and three links from relevant Devtome articles to articles of your own in your own blog, though notice of course (see link) that if you were yourself a Devtome author links from the Devtome would be a perk to you so we are also throwing in twenty thousand GeistGeld, ten thousand CoiLedCoin, five thousand GRouPcoin, two thousand I0Coin, one thousand IXCoin, one hundred NaMeCoin and fifty milliBiTCoins!

Day three, wow, check out how work on the site is progressing! Plus we sold so many bids yesterday that we already know the third auction is going to be for two shares of devcoin distribution, one whole bitcoin, ten whole namecoins, one thousand IXCoins, five thousand I0Coins, ten thousand GRouPcoins, twenty thousand CoiLedCoins, fifty thousand GeistGeld, full setup of a dedicated server running all the merged mined coins so you can merged mine all eight merged mined coins using p2pool, and the first month's hosting fee for that server! Today bids cost X3 and if we sell at least Y3 the fourth auction will be .... etc etc etc...

Probably 90 days is much more realistic a lead time than pretending we will be fully ready for the first auction in only one month.

Also maybe  even once auctions start they can always be determined well in advance like that and based on number of bids already sold, so that the site always has up front in advance all the wealth required to buy all the things that have been scheduled to be auctioned in the future.

-MarkM-

Huh? Nothing personal about it, I was addressing the arguments made by the nick/handle.

I couldn't care less whose sockie / account / nick / argument it is or is not.

-MarkM-

Of course YOU didn't, you are such a no-one you even think ASICs are too expensive for people to buy.

-MarkM-

If there are only two scrypt coins it is conceivable that both might have half the hashing power.

So sure, have two. But if there are three, one of them inevitably mathematically has to have less than half, so that one can go.

DOGE, unfortunately, has way the heck less than half even of just what litecoin has, so it is pretty pathetic. If that is the best we can do as a backup / spare it isn't looking like having two is likely to work very well at all.

(Absent merged mining, of course.)

But hey sure lets have a backup, in case all the litecoin miners do decide to forsake litecoin for a coin that so far has only a trivial fraction of litecoins' power.

-MarkM-

It isn't the litecoin network we are worried about, it has more than half of the scrypt hashing power.

What percent of the DOGE network would he/she have?

What percent of the feathercoin network?

The Earthcoin network?

Today's latest scam networks?

Etc.

-MarkM-