The problem is that POS is a centralised system, one guy or one gang has its hand on the lever ready to pull off their heist the moment doing so looks more profitable to them than letting more suckers crowd in...

It is even worse than Solidcoin, which is pretty amazing considering how bad Solidcoin is/was.

Instead of just one trusted node, Solidcoin had 12. Big deal, it is still the same centralised model.

-MarkM-

First generation?

So like, bitcoin is minus-what generation, followed by the merged mined coins merged with it as minus-what generation, followed by what, Tenebrix, Fairbrix and Litecoin as the zero-eth generation?

Then the non-SHA, non-scrypt coins as, uh, oh wait. Move everything back a generation, these are the zero-eth generation, followed by all the scrypt of the day as first generation?

-MarkM-

No, once ASICs come out most middlecoin miners will not bother to buy the ASICs required to mine the coins they do not feel deserve long term support.

For example if they feel that Quark-style hashing is the way to go, they will buy Quark ASICs, and those ASICs will only be able to mine coins that are stupid enough to copy Quark's hashing method and thus make themselves vulnerable to Quark's ASICs.

And so on, coin by coin.

-MarkM-

Bitcoin is only now starting to become reasonably secure, because it is starting to deploy ASICs.

Until Bitcoin deployed ASICs, it was vulnerable to any government, corporation, terrorist group etc willing to create such ASICs with which to attack Bitcoin.

Being hard to make ASICs for, such as various altcoins attempt to do, does indeed make it harder for attackers to produce such ASICs.

But it also makes it harder for defenders to do so.

Until they do deploy ASICs to secure their blockchains, they are vulnerable not merely to all the general purpose computing equipment such as CPUs GPUs and FPGAs that could at any time turn against them or be hired/rented to use against them but also to any group that chooses to create special purpose ASICs suitable for attacking with.

So the sooner litecoin or doge or whatever is going to turn out to be "the" secure scrypt coin - the one that has over half of the scrypt hashing power in the world defending it - gets its own dedicated ASICs deployed the better for its chances of becoming a serious player.

The rest will hopefully change their hashing method to something only they have ASICs designed and deployed for.

-MarkM-

The "latest rates include file", http://galaxies.mygamesonline.org/latestrates.inc uses DeVCoin as the unit of measure, as indicated by the fact that DVC appears as being a value (rate) of 1.00000000 in that file.

This has led to DVC being used as a "unit of account", for example a lot of loans are denominated in DVC now.

General Financial Corp alone has accounts receivable denominated in DeVCoins totalling 341391108170.02256199 DVC as of the plots and tables timestamped Sat Dec 28 01:55:50 AST 2013.

GFC itself had outstanding DeVCoin-denominated debt totalling 287239801234.20907405 DVC as of that same timestamp set of reports tables and plots.

A whole heck of a lot more DeVCoin need to be minted before such figures could ever be paid off in lump sums using DeVCoin, thus necessitating conversion rates between DeVCoin and other means of settlement, hence the latestrates.inc file.

-MarkM-

Since I see no linkedin, facebook, etc links, no passport scans and so on, here is a useful link for you if you are a hunted felon who dare not reveal his location or identity or the author of a book that insulted The Prophet so that terrorists will kill you the moment they locate you or whatever:

http://bitcoinism.blogspot.ca/2013/12/lex-cryptographia.html

-MarkM-

Why would you believe it? Have they stolen any identities yet or is it just sockpuppets so far or even just anyonymous bitcoin-balances?

There are suckers all over through so really that is all they need, until all the suckers run out of money and new suckers stop being born they likely camke good money running scams like this all over the internet. This might be far from the only such scam they have running.

Here is a potentially useful link: http://bitcoinism.blogspot.ca/2013/12/lex-cryptographia.html

-MarkM-

So now you are just a bitcoin-app-for-smartphones with associated cards? Not an alternative coin afterall, the coin you will be sending and receiving and using and so on is actually bitcoin?

-MarkM-

Not a problem. You can hire tons of them all over the world/internet.

How much are you paying per hour?

The lower the pay you offer, of course, the les feasible it is.

Maybe you should first get your whitepaper perfected, get the details of your plan peer-reviewed, and maybe take it to the Feds or someone who actually likes the idea of constantly intervening in aka messing with the currency and/or markets.

-MarkM-

I am suggesting that there are plenty of people in the world who are not ashamed of who they are so why buy into some scammer or even potential-scammer or even mere potential-incompetent who is ashamed of their own identity?

It is needless pointless extra risk.

If it is risk at all rather than a pretty much "sure thing".

(Sure to be a scam; after all why ever would they NOT run with the money? They can maybe buy a new identity with it that they are not ashamed of.)

Even people who are not ashamed of who they are, such as Pirateat40 who actually met with victims in person, do ripoffs with impunity, so even when we all have scans of your passport and the home phone number of your local chief of police that still doesn't really offer us much.

-MarkM-

If the bounty is not yet sufficient, wait for the value per coin to make it sufficient or for our market cap due to sheer number more coins we have minted to make it feasible for us to offer a higher bounty?

Do we even have free open source 3D printers and laser-cutters yet?

If those are the tools you will be designing for maybe lets get those developed first?

-MarkM-

Why? Obviously the original / main client accepted the blocks that had the lower fee otherwise the blockchain the people using his version of the client would have forked away from the mainline blockchain.

Since it didn't obviously the old client accepted it.

The sooner we get it back to the correct value the better so we don't persist the error since we evidently do not need to cause it to persist.

(Especially if it is possible that one of these days it might end up creating a block that the original client, still in use probably for a long time to come by people who use what worked instead of trying out new versions to discover what new bugs have been introduced, might not accept. It seems like you are potentially trying to possibly blow away all the serious users who are conservative about sticking with what they know works instead of risking all on some new release. If it is not a deliberate hard-fork, fix it before it becomes one. The goal here is not to produce a hard-fork release, is it? If it is, then a block number far in the future should be chosen as the block at which it will come into effect.)

-MarkM-

One of the classic scams.

Please provide your linkedin, facebook, sourceforge, google+, github etc identities and even then we already know that thanks to various intelligence services there are tools to create "established" identities across all social media but at least it will show a little bit of dedication if only to the creation of astroturf identities.

-MarkM-

The name is money.

Call it moola, bread, dough, quid, quid pro quo, whatever, the name is not important because anyone can call it anything they like.

You could make a Bitcoin client that calls millibitcoins "Moola" or "Money" and splashes "The Internet Money" all over its "creatives" (art, ads, etc), "TIM" for short, who cares, as long as what the name refers to is actually, under the hood, real bitcoins it will work fine and people can call it whatever they like.

Or put a "worldcoin" skin on the client, or a cat or dog or pony-show (my little pony, anyone?) and it will still work.

Disney could sell Bitcoin clients with Mickey Mouse and/or Donald Duck and/or Scrooge McDuck plastered all over it and call microbitcoins Duckcoins, it does not matter, it is just another brand of client for the same thing: money.

Or they could make a Princess Points client that calls satoshis or microbitcoins or millibitcoins Princess Points. Whatever.

-MarkM-

Search for "testnet".

Basically you just add "-testnet" to the bitcoind or bitcoin-qt command-line.

Presto, instantly you have an altcoin to play with as you wish to do all that fun experimenting with and so on.

-MarkM-

That is the core of it.

Read up on "51% attack" also known as "50+ % attack".

First you need over half of the CPUs or GPUs or FPGAs securing your chain, or a specialised ASIC that can mine your chain (with other types of ASIC that were designed for other coins not being use-able for your chain.)

That is why it is only recently that Bitcoin started to look secure enough to potentially be able to maybe be secured.

By late 2014 hopefully enough bitcoin-mining ASICs will be deployed defending the Bitcoin blockchain that it might seem reasonable to hope that it should be reasonably unlikely that anyone will be able to mount a successful 51% aka 50+% attack against it.

Until then the sheer lack of security of the blockchain might well explain why Bitcoin's price has managed to keep getting crushed for so many years: it is just too easy to believe that it is still too vulnerable to be a secure store of wealth/value.

Blockchains are insanely, horribly expensive. If you don't have hundreds of millions, maybe billions, to devote to securing them they are simply too impractical for serious use.

You need to be massively higher in hashing power than all the general purpose hardware in the world, so that only special purpose hardware designed specifically for your blockchain can possibly hope to succeed in a 51% aka 50+% attack, and even then you have to worry about how easy it would be for some attacker to gain control of, or build/deploy, as much hashing power specialised to your chain as your chain's devoted defenders can.

-MarkM-

Does that coin even have testnet code working and debugged rather than maybe for example being unchanged from whatever coin it was cloned from?

Do you have testnet nodes running to connect to?

Are you telling your testnet nodes about each other so they can find each other?

-MarkM-

Just don't list coins on exchanges until they have over 50% of the hashing power. Problem partially solved (aka ameliorated).

The whole problem is only arising in the first place because people are irresponsibly - some might suggest deliberately, with malice aforethought, which maybe could be argued down to criminal negligence if a judge is in a lenient mood - encouraging people to throw their money away by buying crap that is not even 50% of the hashrate let alone over 50% of the hashrate.

Basically the coins people are complaining about are coins the complainers have not even bothered to adequately secure.

Responsible exchanges should not list such coins.

The exchanges that specialise in listing such garbage are basically just like those "gold game" forums and topsites that encourage the classic ponzi games known as "gold games".

The whole point of those games is to get out fast before you are one of the inevitable losers/victims.

They are in a way a "marketer olympics", where marketers compete to see who has the largest mailing-list of suckers, the marketers earn commissions for referring suckers to such ponzi games plus also some of them actually put money into the games at the start and compete to see which of them manage to get their money back out again before it is too late. If you don't manage to get back at least what you put in you are a loser, a sucker, a "mark", not a champion marketer. But hey if you buy the latest greatest spammer-tools so you can build a bigger list of suckers and get your spam into their inboxes instead of into their spamboxes you might win the next game so step right up folks there are new games starting every day...

Research "51% attack" aka "50+ % attack".

For example of the scrypt coins which has more than half of the scrypt hashpower?

If none, do any two of them added together have half?

As soon as there are three scrypt coins it is mathematically inevitable that at least one of them has less than half the hashpower.

So if you are lucky there might be one that might conceivably be able to be secured provided its miners upgrade to FPGA and ASIC, and there might conceivably be another that might beat it and end up the winner. The rest are garbage, get their hash rate up first before wasting money buying them.

Also, do not be fooled by alternative hashing schemes that use the same equipment.

All coins that are hashed by CPUs are part of the CPU hashpower, which has more than 50% ?

All coins that use GPUs are part of the GPU hashpower, which of those has over 50% of the GPU power.

All coins that can be mined with FPGAs are part of the FPGA hashpower, which has over 50% ?

Only when you get to an ASIC per coin type or per merged mined family of coins do you start to have some chance of maybe being able to secure the coin provided attackers do not buy/own/control/rent more of that coin's ASICs than defenders do.
 
-MarkM-

Isn't I0Coin much the same?

Both are only lately starting to reach an interesting stage, IXCoin with its cold turkey end of block subsidy looming and I0Coin down to only three coins per block of subsidy.

As to the trading, I have started trying to "market make" for both of them on Vircurex but I just do not have enough discretionary capital to keep the order-books full yet.

Give it time, I guess.

As to bounties etc, that is what the 400,000 pre-mine is for.

I am pretty sure no-where near that much has been given out in bounties yet.

It is quite difficult to mine so even in years of merged-mining it trying to come up with 400,000 coins would take quite a few more years I think.

-MarkM-

No I am not one of the sockpuppets, sorry.

-MarkM-