.. the ability to move offchain at will?.. If the company and chain are as one, there is no conflict.

If the chain was strictly following updates from BTC, it would be no weaker than if it was on BTC, the only risk might be a 51% attack but an established merge mined chain like DVC perhaps doesn't have that anyway?

Obviously I no dev but could you create a 100% PoS that mapped addresses to BTC?[/list]

If this does pose such a dilemma, would it be trivial to jump to a new chain like Devcoin, that uses the same addresses as Bitcoin? I imagine the utility of XCP and others like MSC would be sufficient that there was merge mining enough to support it and that would release any perceived stress on BTC and still allow any interaction with BTC that was needed. Doing so would engage a new audience of miners too, which might be a boon.

Are the Bitcoins devs simply worried about how to manage later Blockchain size?.. Counterparty or not.. Size matters? If that fundamental hasn't been resolved for Bitcoin on its own, then perhaps those devs are naturally worried about accepting anything more which would compound that problem in future?

I'm on Mint but expect it's the same for you. I couldn't just double run the bitcoin-qt as I coudl with 0.8.6 but it runs when started from the command line.
So, cd ~/bitcoin-0.9.0-linux/bin/32 and ./bitcoin-qt &

What happened to the NXT forum?.. forums.nxtcrypto.org is rather quiet; I know they lost their owner but still it's odd there isn't more.

That's an interesting thought. The risk might continue that people could lose their passwords and then prefer to spread the risk.

Would be useful to include an option for DAC [coins *] =Meta | Protocol 2.0 coins, such as MSC; NXT; XCP; PTS and when they appear ETH; NEM
See an example of that selection exists at http://dacindex.com/

Stating that without evidence, is like Ripple shrills stating theirs is the better one without being clear about why.

Perhaps you can answer my query in the eMunie forum about the character of eMu, as it's not obvious whether eMu is simply the water in which everything sits - as Ripple appears to be; or whether it's meant to hold value like BTC, in which case it needs to be clear the way in which new eMu is created; or something else. The absence of a white paper doesn't help and the wiki doesn't have enough depth.. is eMunie to be open source even??

It'll be interesting to see if LTC gets traction and wide exposure to the same options that BTC offers. I wonder that if Bitcoin goes large then rather than BTC pwning the market share, it'll instead be shared amongst serious alt-coins and a large part of that market value I suspect will be more with the Bitcoin2.0 Protocols and 'Meta-coins' such as BitShares PTS; NXT; MasterCoin MSC; Counterparty XCP; end eventually Ethereum. Perhaps even less clear options like eMu and Ripple, though from what I can tell those last two are just water which supports function, rather than those being host to currency value.

At least on Linux, where the wallet.dat is stored is normally also a bitcoin.conf with configure options as a text file. If it doesn't exist, above is suggesting create that with at least a line that is rpcpassword=randompassword; then run the daemon rather than the GUI QT by running ./bitcoind -daemon; the ./bitcoind getinfo is just a check that it's completed scanning the blockchain and is ready to reply to requests from the script. ".bitcoin/bitcoin.conf" is normally in the user's home directory on Linux as a hidden directory which is the . before bitcoin. So == ~/.bitcoin/bitcoin.conf - on other OS, look to where ever your wallet is for similar.


Be very careful if you download that other application.. paranoid careful. At least disconnect the internet and reboot before reconnecting in case it's a trap.

Perhaps you misread two of the characters or missed one such as : at the start. If there might have been '' mistaken for " or ^; ] for l or | etc; or a duplicate character; etc, then those might be worth looking at. I'd expect it's just one error, so limited number of those to check.

Since you have the wallet, you could post the password here and see if there are obvious typo errors that can be suggested for that.

Don't mind El Dude, he's got all his hopes pinned on what a MtGox2.0 might do for the LongTrollCoin. 

It has a forum but here we are.. I'd rather everyone did use that forum.

Perhaps looks at what Bitcoin2.0 protocols are looking to offer.. MasterCoin; CounteryParty; NXT; BitShares all potentially might shortly offer easy options to issue your own coins.

You could look into Bitcoin2.0 protocols that might allow you to have your own coins shortly.. Mastercoin; CounterParty etc
Obviously, the trick is giving coins value and making them useful..

Well some of them have forums that they use for multithreaded discussions; Counterparty seems to prefer putting everything in one place.

FAQ link above I wonder should be http://bitcointangibletrust.com/faq/

Could do with making obvious whether delivery outside US is practical and whether that then has ++fees for that.

Include an age older than option and set default for that beyond the typical first pump and dump, which I guess is usually within three months of opening.

I wonder those coins for which it is known that most coins are not available should not have that total coins as a multiplier.. Ripple being the big abuser of that idea.
If I create 99,999,996,303 of my own coin and sell only 10 of them for $10 each, do I have a market cap of $999,999,963,030?..



No!!.. It's important that some Bitcoin2.0 Protocol coins are visible - NXT; MSC; XCP etc are valuable and that they are not available to miners doesn't suggest their marketcap is not interesting! But do remove Ripple - that's in a different category of not being a proper alt-currency that holds value; it's just the water in which Ripple shrills float.

erm.. I want to see a correlation but I only see an idea?..