|
Why not create a platform for Litecoin ala Counterparty?
edit: And doesn't some big Chinese miner mines and supports Litecoin? Why not get some guy like him to fund and support the project?
|
|
|
|
@kazuki49 Yup most profitable, why do you suggest monero?
Simple. Because it's trending up. |
|
|
|
A question here: have you heard of CAPTcoin?
Nope. Did you had some of this or don't? Nope. And how did you see the future of CAPTcoin? (i.e. will rise or drop in price?) Nope. Also, if you got some BTC (either for free or bought from somewhere), will you invest some on this? Nope. Or you are having some of this now, and want to sell this now? Don't have any... Nope. I am asking this question for some advice of my investment. Thank you for watching and (if) replying it!
Stay away from Captcoin. You're welcome. |
|
|
|
So where do you think will Paycoin go ? Tell me your price predictions.
i take it back. my answer... yes, one gazillion.  |
|
|
|
i mean there iss ethereum (and nxt etc). can NEM still be relevant? im looking up to developers like bloodyrookie who obviously actually have skills and don't really care about all the drama surrounding all the crypto coins. how does community view this thing ? can this thing keep up with Ethereum ? will it have its need in the world ? what say u?  P.S. accidently clicked self moderated, this is not on purpose, I won't delete anythingfunding will matter a lot. how much funding does the NEM team have? |
|
|
|
I'm just wondering what the pros and cons of such a project can have. And also what you guys might think on the hurdles and obstacles in implementing it.
IBM may be looking to further its exploration of bitcoin and blockchain technologies in a way that goes beyond its previously revealed proof of concept ADEPT.
Reuters reports the US-based tech giant is seeking to create a digital cash and payment system for traditional currencies that uses blockchain technologies.
Citing a person familiar with the matter, IBM said the objective is to make traditional payments instantaneous while cutting out traditional intermediaries such as banks and clearing parties.
The article explained:
The transactions would be in an open ledger of a specific country's currency such as the dollar or euro, said the source, who declined to be identified because of a lack of authorization to discuss the project in public.
Complete article is here... http://www.coindesk.com/ibm-rumored-bitcoin-alternative/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CoinDesk+%28CoinDesk+-+The+Voice+of+Digital+Currency%29 |
|
|
|
After seeing the number of orders on Cex.io for GHS above 0.05 BTC I thought I would put together some links to relevant information and tools to estimate the return on investment. Before you buy any GHS make sure you do the sums to see if it is worthwhile. Here are my calculations that show that people who are buying GHS with cex.io are set to lose more than they invest. The going price is about 0.072 BTC per GHS. According to this calculator that uses the past 4(i think) difficulty rises to predict the increase in difficulty, you are set to lose more than half of your investment. http://www.coinish.com/calc/#To use this calculator to calculate the return per GHS, Set the hash rate to 1000 (1GHS) Change the currency in the investment section to BTC and enter the price of 1 GHS Set the power requirements to 1.5 and the power costs to 0.3 as per https://cex.io/maintenanceYou will see that considering reduction you stand to loose US$47 from an investment of about US$75 You can play around with the difficulty increase to achieve different results if you believe it is going to slow down. However, it is hard to imagine it slowing down much if you will soon be able to get 1200GHs for US$7000, about 10 bitcoins, which equates to 0.0083 bitcoins per GHs. Almost 10 times less than the going rate on cex.io http://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/calculatorThe historical rise in difficulty and the next predicted rise can be found at the link below. The difficulty is set to rise more than 22% next time. http://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficultyIt is very unlikely that at the current price of GHS that you will break even let alone make a profit. The over inflated price is probably due to the generous referral system where if you refer someone you get 3% times the amount of GHS they buy. That combined with a lot of people wanting to get in on the mining business makes perfect conditions to exploit Beginners. Consider the advice you receive carefully. If you have found this useful please consider donating 1Muj6adZViZ6nGWgT3bM3PUbGK3pK4Kx78 What about at current prices? If CEX starts mining again, would the current price of GHS/BTC (.00077 as of now) be a good time to get in? If not, then I couldn't wrap my head around how Cloud Hashing is selling contracts at such a high price. Look... https://cloudhashing.com/bitcoin-mining-contracts |
|
|
|
|
Is CEX going to mine again when BTC hits and stays above 320? We're almost there. I hope CEX lowers the fees.
Also... Is CEX planning on purchasing new ASICs if ever they decide to start mining again?
|
|
|
|
Interesting, I would still be wary of high maintenance fee's if/when mining resumes as this was the reason a lot of people sold their GH/s on the site.
Hopefully they've learned their lesson. |
|
|
|
First off, why even buy cloud mining from them right now? It is worthless.
Second of all, extremely high prices nowadays for their GH.
How much does it really cost per GH? Because this makes me wonder how MN (Mining Consolidated Shares) is sold at Cryptsy at .0074 (right now) per 1.167 GH and it's trending up. So I am debating (in my mind lol) that GHS/BTC at CEX could be a good investment if: 1. They start mining again. 2. Starts trending up. |
|
|
|
|
That could be it. But still... There's profit to be made if say BTC rises to 500 (hopeful), and that you accumulated 10BTC worth of GHS at these prices. And then it starts trending up.
It wouldn't be a bad trade really. Although GHS/BTC seems stable now, I'm still waiting (more like scared) in the sidelines. I might start picking up some when it starts trending above .00080. It could be a start of an uptrend.
|
|
|
|
Cex.io's cloud mining service wasn't profitable anyways, and cloud mining is just scam. I don't see bad news in this.
But what if GHS/BTC starts trending up and then CEX starts mining again. There's profit in there. |
|
|
|
|
There was an article on Coin Desk that mining could resume when BTC is around 320... BTC is almost there. Would it be a good time to start accumulating GHS? It's been really stable lately.
|
|
|
|
Better wait for drak's response instead spreading more fud. I will repeat that imho things are currently not looking good at all, but it's not the end of the world. My personal opinion is that marketing team should be gathered ato work on VIA's adoption. Current price can be doubled with less than 5 BTC, buying support started to show again little by little. Adoption is the key to success... features sometimes take a lot of time and lately people are kinda impatient.
Maybe it's Drak himself buying back cheap.  I kid, I kid... hehehehe. |
|
|
|
cold hard reality always sets in after some time with these 'coin projects.' without targeting a specific market its almost impossible to find users. you cant just go after the whole world and expect to gain traction.
Of course that you can and I can even say it is a must. How do you think some people such as billionaires and actors succeeded? Do you think that their investments/auditions were always success? You can't expect to receive attention from the entire world, but you can have some percentage of it. This could be more than enough. Think big... Sure. But it's not happenning for VIA at the moment. |
|
|
|
A friend of mine mentioned that Vitalik Buterin of Ethereum said that POC has a flaw and that someone can attack the network and cause a double spend. He said it was posted on Reddit. But I can't find it anywhere. Is this true? If so can someone post the link? ty
I read what he posted on https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/cryptocurrency-burst-makes-smart-contracts-reality-happened-ethereum/ and normally I would say FUD but you have to look at who it is and think not but then again the article pokes butthurt at his invention so.... It would be nice for the BURST Dev to comment on this for the record. Vitalik Buterin zash a month ago
I'll copy my post from Reddit:
> Okay, I thought about POC for 15 minutes, and...
>
> wow, congrats, these guys have managed to create an algorithm which
simultaneously has a nothing at stake vulnerability AND is economically
inefficient.
> The problem is this. It seems as though the intent of the algorithm
is for the bulk of the cost to be storing the hard drive, and for the
hard drive to be able to "idle" after it scanned through the entire
plot. However, this means that once the plots are built, there is very
little cost to redoing the scan multiple times on multiple forks. Hence,
if an attacker could either (i) convince miners that its fork had a
>0.1%* chance of succeeding or (ii) bribe miners 0.001x the block
reward, miners all have the incentive to double-vote.
> * In order for the algo to be storage-bound and for a shortcut attack
involving recomputing everything not to exist, we need reading from the
hard drive to take less time than recomputing the data. But then we
want a 1000x safety margin if we want that condition to hold true
against potential ASIC implementations, hence reads need to be 1000x
cheaper than the plot computation step. Hence, reading more than one
time would have a marginal incremental cost of only 0.1%.
Things are this are why we didn't launch in Jan 2014  Same here. I think it would be nice to hear from the BURST dev. Nothing at Stake(NaS) is a theoretical attack typically talked about for Proof of Stake(PoS) systems. The general idea stems from the fact that since PoS mining/staking requires negligible work, users can vote(mine) on as many chains as they want with their full voting/mining power, unlike with PoW where their mining power would have to be split to be used on multiple chains. Some people argue that this property weakens the system as smart miners should mine every chain instead of just the one they think is best, as it costs them nothing to mine on the extras and if the other one happens to win they stand to gain, or that someone wanting to attack a coin could pay miners to multi-vote. Users multi-voting this way would reduce the amount of hashpower required to do a 51% attack. As far as I know this has never caused problems to a coin, but it is an interesting and commonly discussed property. This applies to all PoS coins, and it also applies to Burst. He is criticizing the fact Burst requires work to be done in it's mining, and NaS applies to it, saying it's taking an undesirable property each from PoW and PoS. He's not wrong and I've previously discussed NaS in this thread, however both of those undesirable properties do apply less then than they do in their normal implementations(the work while mining limits the amount of multi-voting you can do, and the work you do is far less than mining PoW coins). Personally I don't see this as a problem. Thanks for the clarification. So I guess we can only hope no bad actor attacks BURST...? |
|
|
|
A friend of mine mentioned that Vitalik Buterin of Ethereum said that POC has a flaw and that someone can attack the network and cause a double spend. He said it was posted on Reddit. But I can't find it anywhere. Is this true? If so can someone post the link? ty
I read what he posted on https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/cryptocurrency-burst-makes-smart-contracts-reality-happened-ethereum/ and normally I would say FUD but you have to look at who it is and think not but then again the article pokes butthurt at his invention so.... It would be nice for the BURST Dev to comment on this for the record. Vitalik Buterin zash a month ago
I'll copy my post from Reddit:
> Okay, I thought about POC for 15 minutes, and...
>
> wow, congrats, these guys have managed to create an algorithm which
simultaneously has a nothing at stake vulnerability AND is economically
inefficient.
> The problem is this. It seems as though the intent of the algorithm
is for the bulk of the cost to be storing the hard drive, and for the
hard drive to be able to "idle" after it scanned through the entire
plot. However, this means that once the plots are built, there is very
little cost to redoing the scan multiple times on multiple forks. Hence,
if an attacker could either (i) convince miners that its fork had a
>0.1%* chance of succeeding or (ii) bribe miners 0.001x the block
reward, miners all have the incentive to double-vote.
> * In order for the algo to be storage-bound and for a shortcut attack
involving recomputing everything not to exist, we need reading from the
hard drive to take less time than recomputing the data. But then we
want a 1000x safety margin if we want that condition to hold true
against potential ASIC implementations, hence reads need to be 1000x
cheaper than the plot computation step. Hence, reading more than one
time would have a marginal incremental cost of only 0.1%.
Things are this are why we didn't launch in Jan 2014 Same here. I think it would be nice to hear from the BURST dev. |
|
|
|
All in all this was essentially an underwhelming project from the start.
actually, it was a pretty exciting project at the start. offered a heck of a lot an had great momentum. To me it looked like a port of Counterwallet and a bit of fanfare about Peter Todd and sidechains. The whole thing was orchestrated in the altmarkets IRC channel and seemed to me like a fairly straightforward, cynical pump and dump. Some people actually do think so. The price reflects the people's confidence. |
|
|
|
If Steve Jobs himself was dumping Apple stocks on the market, would that give shareholders confidence in holding their Apple shares?
He did, and it didn't. Oh yeah... He did when he left Apple. Then look what happened, the stock went down. In VIA 's case, price is falling regardless of who is dumping. I really hope this project turns around though. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
