What is needed is a coin that can confirm as fast as a Visa and MasterCard transaction. There is a way to do it. We just need to figure it out. That means at least 4 (four) confirms in under 20 seconds. We need a coin that can do a single confirmation in under 5 seconds. Anddddd this quote alone proves you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Network hash rate aside, confirmations are only as reliable as the distance of time between them. 4 confirmations at 5 seconds no more reliable than 1 confirmation in 20 seconds |
|
|
|
well, this are 2 completely different concepcts, and none of them is even slightly close to the original
1. time based reward
this is fail by design. super unfair distibution. you cannot distribute by time based on global difficulty and current protocol. False, this is exactly what the original concept hoped to be. If there is 1 coin generated per second, coins are effectively distributed by hashing power percentage. 2. difficulty based reward
nothing is changed, just another altcoin.
False, this solution also addresses all the issues I laid out in the OP. |
|
|
|
I'm currently considering either a time or difficulty based solution Time based: X coins generated per hour. Coins are effectively distributed by the percentage of hash power you contribute to the network. Subsidy reduction not necessary. Difficulty based: Amount of coins generated scales relative to difficulty. Amount of coins generated per MHash remains flat, no matter how many miners are on the network. Subsidy reduction would be in accordance with Moore's Law. I believe both of these address a lot of the problems recent altcoins have had with their launches, although the difficulty based solution is far more easier to implement that the time based one. Would this coin address the inevitable dump that comes after a coin reaches a exchange?
There's nothing to prevent what people choose to do with their coin. But, by design, there won't be the "early miners with a ton of coins" scenario that we've seen play out multiple times, so people won't have tons of easily acquired coins that they could just dump. |
|
|
|
Bump  - Love it or hate it, I wish all of us here could just use our own resources to promote something and possibly turn it into something real, rather than wasting resources to bash others. Just get behind whatever you like, and do what you can - I thought we did a pretty good job promoting! Its in the hands of the community now. Maybe the next coin we promote won't be started from a joke!   |
|
|
|
Thats exactly why we changed the name. we were up to 250 mhs while it was still a joke. Weve been stating the same facts, never deceptive about firecoin. You were definitely hating before....
Look we are all here to trade coins, some here choose deception - if that's how you roll fine - but others should be aware of your intentions. I find it funny that you make these statements, yet are a WDC supporter. That coin is no more legitimate than FC2 or any other Litecoin knockoff. |
|
|
|
The majority stake holders change the name and create a pretty logo to mask the true origin of the coin. I'd also like to address this by pointing out that the very first sentence in the FC2 thread reads "Firecoin2 initially began as a Feathercoin2, a joke coin created to poke fun at all the recent altcoin releases." There's no deception here. Don't fall for it. It's a worthless coin now and will remain so in the future. All these coins are equally worthless. They're all litecoin clones that offer nothing more than various flavors of block confirmation times and pretty logos. They'll all be worthless in the future. Especially the ones with horrible fundamentals, like WorldCoin, with it's 15 second block times that lead to a multitude of issues such as forking and block chain bloat. Right, because if you read it on the internet, it has to be true! I mean, that's your decision, I don't really care what you think either way. I don't have much of a stake in this coin. My largest stake currently resides in RoyalCoin. I think it's the sleeper amongst all these altcoins. |
|
|
|
Hey guys, let me get in on this inside operation... I only own 8k FC2  |
|
|
|
|
Development update:
From the outset, the main problem with this concept was figuring out how to combat the timestamp manipulation vector of attack. As it is decentralized, there is no centrally agreed upon time in the bitcoin network. There exists a network mean time, and the bitcoin client will accept a block as a valid if the timestamp of a new block is within 2 hours of the network mean time. This is obviously an unacceptable window. It would be possible to decrease the window from 2 hours to something more reasonable, say, 30 seconds, but this would require every client on the network to synchronize their system clocks. Not exactly an elegant solution.
Development may shift towards a difficulty oriented method of deciding how many coins are minted if the community deems synchronizing times as an unacceptable solution.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Last build was accidentally pushed out with upnp disabled. I usually disable upnp for private/test builds as an easy way of isolating myself from the outside network. Forgot to change it back in the makefile I'll be uploading a recompile soon. For now, forward port 9131 or add a peer to your .conf, if you're having issues |
|
|
|
Agreed, we've got a good new coin anyways: Worldcoin
No need for any more coins, and any launching now are guaranteed failures.
Yes, such a good coin. 15 second block time that leads to tons of orphans, forking issues, and blockchain bloat.  Tomorrow the kids will have found another altcoin to hype. |
|
|
|
|
royalcoin, 1 week after launch still has strong hashrate.. many altcoins can't say the same.
|
|
|
|
While this is probably true, if they started at a difficulty of 1, or .25, and the coin became popular, very quickly, it would be impossible to get coins, and if it was traded, the coin would be unprofitable to mine. So that means basically anyone without 10 - 30 MH's rigs (for litecoin variants) would get scraps, where as currently with some of the new coins, anyone who sees a release quick enough,m even with minimal hashing power, can scoop up a few thousand coins and possible a nice profit if its traded. I say something like .025 would be a better start than .25 or 1.
What was Bitcoin's original starting difficulty, anyone know?
What are you talking about...? At difficulty 0.25 with 350 KH/s you should find a block roughly every hour, that is hardly scraps. Coins shouldn't be made with the intention of everyone getting thousands of coins in the first few days so they can hoard them until the coin reaches an exchange and then dump their thousands of coins on the market decreasing the value of the coin instantaneously. Any coin designed to be intentionally pumped and dumped shouldn't bother being released. Bitcoin's starting difficulty was technically higher than 0.25 static CBigNum bnProofOfWorkLimit(~uint256(0) >> 30) that generates a starting scrypt difficulty of ~0.25, every incremental increase doubles the difficulty. Bitcoin started with: static CBigNum bnProofOfWorkLimit(~uint256(0) >> 32) Please explain how that line of code raises the starting difficulty? It doesn't. |
|
|
|
60480... if you're waiting...it's gonna be a long wait!
So, you have no idea. Means there's 3000 blocks to go. At diff 41 something and a hashrate that is bellow 500Mh last time I checked, I'm guessing a week. Cool, and do you have any idea where diff will drop to? ~10 I'd imagine. |
|
|
|
Network hash rate still holding strong at 173 MHash |
|
|
|
|
If you are upgrading clients, please move the contents of
C:\Users\%NAME%\AppData\Roaming\FeatherCoin2
into
C:\Users\%NAME%\AppData\Roaming\FireCoin2
To maintain your wallet / not have to redownload the blockchain. Again, there is no need to upgrade, the changes are purely cosmetic.
|
|
|
|
|
A new client is not needed.
|
|
|
|
I'm home. Firecoin2 release will happen shortly |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
