Line 323 of bitcoinrpc.cpp :


The 2016 is leftover from litecoind So basically hashrate is calculated over the last 2016 blocks which spans way too many diff retargets in Noirbits...

If you want, I can push a fix tonight when I get home from work.

It also looks that there is an issue with the way that the network hash is being calculated. We will need to look into that as it is not representing the true network hash rate over few enough blocks. It is showing that our pools have over 100% of the network when they clearly don't, and it also is dropping the difficulty even when the true hashrate is higher.

It will only be a success if I can explain it to my mother.

Too complicated, I think.
You guys?

what OS?

yes this needs to be done indeed.  - so wait , is infinite-coin literally never ending  with huge block rewards ?

this would be cause to throw to a "viable currency vote"

if the forum believes its not viable then it is excluded -

however then with the other currencies  the total cap would need to be looked at , hmm need to think on this . ..

ok so the Ant is there and at the start he has say 34 Legs - 34 Devs admit that = "no chance to exchange" so in each leg of the Ant goes each currency valued at exactly the same value.

this value adds up and creates a ratio downward the more that goes in ? so maybe the same principal :

i will take two examples :

Currency A has a very large block reward
Currency B has a very low block reward - the Gem and Bitbar type

both are submitted to the Ant leg

Leg 1 - large block reward is valued at 1 (in the first batch) with the first unit being valued at that in the ant body as more come in it divides the unit down
Leg 2 - small block reward comes in at 1 (in the first batch) with the next coming in much more slowly but dividing down as they do

Sum all legs to get final Ant value?

then rinse and repeat - the next batch will have legs of lesser value that get divided in the same way, yes? does this work ?


but as Ant is trade-able  there will be the Ant number and the Ant Value - that's what makes it fun .

but in this way you could still make it a low number with its own Ant cap right  ?

Ha HA what about a reverse pyramid?

Ok so the first batch of "Coins" can be valued as a group - based on the information in the market today we have to say "some are spam some might not be"

so we exist in this reality so those coins are valued at a = to "No chance to exchange" of say oh lets call it 1 to simplify.

then you have cause an inherit motive in the information market to create a "coin" and submit it to Ant.

so any subsequent batch  has to be valued at lower than this , and the equation is simple reverse pyramid -

First batch
1111111111111111111111111111111  < this is the number in the first batch they all get valued at the same = "no chance to exchange value"

i'm just putting more than one "1" to express the number of currencies int he first batch

Second batch
0.03125

this number is derived by the amount of "coins" that are submitted < i.e there are 32 new pieces of crap released < the devs admit it divide 1 / 32 = 0.03125.
all the second batch of currencies are now valued at 0.03125

Third batch
0.0020833333333333

15 more spam currencies that failed to get to an exchange , Dev(s) admits it -  

0.03125 / 15 = 0.0020833333333333

Fourth Batch  - The spam continues -
0.0010415

2 more spam come and greet our shores -
0.0020833333333333/ 2 = 0.0010415

so on so fourth - ?

Or - ok wait for this:


Grab ALL the spam literally as much as you can find

put them in a vote and then request / ask Devs to remove them or send a request for them to be removed.

why?

because you are going to value them all at the same very low price -

if the Dev believes his value to be higher and its going to exchange he will request it to be removed , however if there is no chance that its going to exchange there is no motive to do this.

thus it gets added to the Ant at a = No chance to exchange price value. whatever that may be and could be voted on.

then if the Devs that removed coins find out they are holding something that has no chance to exchange , then they can submit it to Ant.

exceptions to this should be a "viable currency clause" :

for example Kopimikoin is not a "viable currency" as Hazard wrote himself 900k of them, so the market agrees its "not viable" these are the votes that could be taken.

this way the vote motive equation polarity is shifted from the positive to the negative and it will balance.

he's basically talking about Nashx - and Nash equilibrium , but he probably/maybe doesn't realize it .

merge into open transaction i'd say just means - "automate the process and make it seamless"

I brought it up in Netcoin - but the Nashx guy done it first - , but i don't think it needs to be done ?

if Ant goes to Cryptsy Ant is being exchanged so the value of the derivative is being exchanged .

he is talking about a P2P exchange .

If you can lock them into things like multisig escrows and merge them into Open Transactions, you will have viable derivatives.

So it's like a whole BASKET of shitcoins
I'm in for sure, got a plethora of muppet coins taking up space on my hard drive.

who decides ?

i didn't even think of that , i think i just asked the deal breaking question -