Hello, I'm looking for Altcoins with a long term run. Anyone ?
“long term” <- if you can define this quantitatively, I can limit the output. What attributes do you need to be listed / to filter? * protocol (bitcoin, nxt, counterparty.etc) * protection scheme (pow, pos, mainly) * distribution scheme (ico-pow, airdrop, etc) * block hash algo (x11, SHA2-256, SHA3-256, etc.) * number of coins * block target time in secs * premine % * status (listed, extant, defunct) Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
P.S. Isnt one supposed to sail close to the wind?  Pfft, learn to read... “ too close”. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
|
Google is in on this joke, apparently:
“http://goo.gl/ob6H8C – this goo.gl shortlink has been disabled. It was found to be violating our Terms of Service. Click <here> and <here> for more information about our terms and policies respectively.”
Incidentally, FTR, did you actually manage to create a coin with 0 seconds block time?
Nope, that's just coingen's execrable UI. Ftr: 10 min block time, 168 hrs retarget time, 10 blocks for maturation.
Cheers
Graham
Edit: DYR
|
|
|
|
Please read my codes, thanks  You seem to be headed for a really intense educational experience, quite soon. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Too bad his lifespan didnt lead to the needed experience to deal with the project he drove on the wall.
There's no fool like an old fool, says this old fool. Cheers Graham (64) |
|
|
|
i will do a proper merge with upstream when im off the ship, its hard with limit internet to do anything else right now
Apologies, I didn't connect up the dots. np. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
GH is being cantankerous, the web GUI won't create a fork; apparently I already have a fork of bitcoin via my fork of ppcoin, sigh. The working repos might be better off located in the main Spreadcoin org section, a port to SpreadCoin Core is a big enough job that the issue tracker is likely to play a useful role. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
While certainly interesting and should raise concerns in a lot of people, that was more about whether the currency itself is considered centralized or not. I'm talking about the network, or to be more specific, any functionality that would rely on a "small" pool of nodes that could be compromised.
Fair comment but I think disagree with the likelihood of compromise. Where do you see the attack vectors? The likelihood of a successful sybil attack is the same as the other overlay network coins, basically diminished almost to nothing because of the deposit/stake requirement. AIUI Spreadcoin gains a degree of protection from eclipse attacks by determining the population of service nodes dynamically via an auction process. As regards “small”, that's something for georgem to comment on, I guess. Mr Spread had 1440 nodes in mind, that's an ambitious target for an eclipse attack. At the end of they day, my entire point is to avoid anything like the use of masternodes etc in order to reduce the risk to the system as they're just not required due to other options being available.
You're not alone in that view, gmaxwell has also dropped some heavy hints to that effect. It's my problem that I can't see the solution space as clearly as he does and I haven't yet managed to find an actual explanation of how the same functionality can be achieved with these “other options”. It sort of depends on what services are in the frame. Some mooted services such as automated contracts will run headlong into the symbol grounding problem, will have give up ambitions to be trustless and accept an oracular trusted third-party model. Other mooted services such as InstanTx use only abstract symbols and so (AIUI) can be solidly founded on pure cryptography. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Masternodes (Dash) and service nodes (SPR) are fully decentralised anyway, whatever services they are providing. ummm. No they're not. This issue is potentially too important to be held hostage by unsupported assertions. Taken verbatim from the “ripple-paid-$700k-for-PoD-from-USG” thread (I paraphrase): There is nothing new here. FinCEN has issued guidance over two years ago that makes a clear distinction between a Centralized Virtual Currency and a De-Centralized Virtual Currency. http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html. Centralized Virtual Currencies mean that the Administrator and this can easily include developers etc. are considered MSBs and subject to MSB and AML/KNC regulations. Premined, IPO, ICO coins and likely many instamined and ninjamined coins are considered Centralized Virtual Currencies and subject to MSB and AML/KNC regulations. For a coin to be considered a De-Centralized Virtual Currency both the following conditions have to be met. A final type of convertible virtual currency activity involves a de-centralized convertible virtual currency (1) that has no central repository and no single administrator, and (2) that persons may obtain by their own computing or manufacturing effort. This is among many reasons why I have limited my Crypto-currency investments to Bitcoin (XBT), Monero (XMR) and Namecoin (NMC) and have stayed well away from premined, instamined, ninjamined, IPO, ICO, etc coins. We must keep in mind that the whole point of Bitcoin was to create a de-centralized form of money without a centralized controlling entity, and not to replace one centralized controlling entity with another for private profit. Edit 1: If one wishes to invest in centralized forms of money one can buy shares in a bank. Edit 2: It is not just FinCEN that premined, instamined, ninjamined, IPO, ICO, etc coins need to be concerned about. In the United States there is the SEC, and then there are hundreds of national and sub national regulatory bodies worldwide that could follow FinCEN's lead. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Thanks for including the link to the coindesk piece, it has what I think is a profoundly interesting additional detail: The settlements dictate that “certain enhancements” to the Ripple Protocol need to take place “to appropriately monitor all future transactions”.
Such delicate phrasing. And a classic quote from the FinCEN Director, impressive ability to keep a straight face. “Innovation is laudable but only as long as it does not unreasonably expose our financial system to tech-smart criminals eager to abuse the latest and most complex products.”
Reading that evokes a very strong mental image of Tommy Lee Jones in MIB, “No ma’am, the FBI does not have a sense of humor that we are aware of.” Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Anybody who is serious about running a full node please tell me your IP.
5.9.56.229 runs a full node with txindex=1 and a full testnet node ditto. IP address is of minkiz.co where I'm developing a lightweight block explorer: https://minkiz.co/acme/spr amongst other things. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
no, it's a QT related issue, i'm looking into it
Compiled under Ubuntu 14.04, the GUI ran successfully once but segfaulted thereafter until datadir is zeroed, compiled daemon works fine. Eventually I managed to get the GUI to stay up by specifying -litemode=1. I guess that disables the problematic bit. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
I'm writing a master thesis in the subject of technology trajectories affecting the variance in cryptocurrencies and need to have reliable data.
Question is if there is any consensus about which one is more trustworthy than the other?
Strange question. A consensus is a collective perception, it's most unlikely you'll get any reliable data by taking this approach. I predict you will need to define carefully your concept of “reliable”. There is a key difference between alts and stocks in that (AIUI) maintaining and submitting a full record of each and every stock trade is obligatory and mandated by legislation. No such accounting reliability attaches to altcoin trading. Trading records must be assumed to have an indeterminate degree of inaccuracy and to be, overall, incomplete. The term “market capitalization” is only analogous in this context and in order for the analogy to be perceived as useful, the mapping has to be fudged: “equal to the share price times the number of shares outstanding”. The argument “shares === coins” has not been accepted unconditionally by everyone, I'm given to understand that establishing a market cap for Ripple remains a contentious issue. I recommend you peer into the horse's mouth so to speak and start inspecting the contents of the data streams emitted by the various exchange APIs (where an API exists, else you'll need to pagescrape). That will give you the most reliable data. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
I'm not saying anything is wrong with sha.
Just saying something doesn't look kosher.
It may well not ”look kosher“ but that's primarily because your own reasoning is being spared the standard of rigour that you insist should be applied to cryptography. The unanimous rejection of your argument by those from whom you sought an opinion in the first place should be a cue for you to re-examine your underlying assumptions. It's likely that your conclusions are flawed because an incorrect assumption is resulting in false premises, an instance of GIGO. OTOH, you may be experiencing a cognitive illusion (PDF, sry) which I've observed to be particularly prevalent in cryptography. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
I am going to try to work on creating a 3D servicenode (oh yeah, smartnode does sound pretty bad).
Just for ideas: service nodes form an overlay network, example from wikipedia ...  Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Newbie dev is the lead marketing consultant ... Viral is about making this happen.
Oops. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Any news  Difficult to say when Soopy's statements hold so little predictive value. I guess there are a couple of pointed sub-questions: Does anyone now still care? And if so, what are the practical options? Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
