Oh good you won't need any money from anyone here then since your sockpuppets are being so generous.

-MarkM-

So just like Ripple, Mastercoin, NXT and VISAcoin, in other words?

-MarkM-

Okay so how many millions do you have invested in specialised gear to secure your coins?

Will they all be merged together so your one type of specialised gear will be able to secure all of them or will you be creating a different ASIC for each?

(Or do you simply plan to scam people into trusting instead of actually being secure?)

-MarkM-

The comparison to how many fiat currencies there are in the world kind of overlooks the fact that most of those currencies are backed by troops / armed police.

Not foreign mercenary troops either but native troops.

Not migrant swarms of troops that fly over to whichever nation offers them the biggest bounty that hour or day...

-MarkM-

Actually a unified wallet would be awesome.

One wallet, a graphical bitcoin wallet that has skins/themes ability.

Then all the marketer/hype people can go wild making umpteen themes/skins addressing different demographics and niche markets and so on, yet all are totally compatible because under the hood they are all really just different names for bitcoin...

-MarkM-

This is sad.

They aren't referred to as scamcoins / crapcoins / shitcoins for nothing. Whatever would cause you to imagine that yet another one of them would be any different than all the others? Does it have anything truly different about it at all?

-MarkM-

Yeah but people use websites for money too, so we already know they prefer getting it all stolen regularly for the convenience factor.

Otherwise all the exchanges etc would be running Open Tranactions or having the users use PGP like MPOE does or stuff like that.

The customer is always right and the customers insist on insecure systems.

Banks tell people to use their birthday or social insurance number as their PIN. Its apparently more profitable to write off constant massive theft and pay off the media not to report on its vast scale than to tell grandma its not okay to let the local mugger help her work the confusing ATM machines or whatever.

-MarkM-

They would have to sign the updates using the keys the client trusts, which would not be on any server unless the developer was part of the gang of crooks in the first place, such as if the developer deliberately put their personal developer key on a third party machine as a way to try to be able to pretend their inside job was a hack.

Basically the key would only exist on each signing developer's own encrypted laptop in their vault, or whatever.

It could still get hacked despite all the airgap etc etc though simply by their distro sending a trojan or being already infected with a trojan.

(Next NSA defector might not whistle-blow, might just make personal use of all those backdoors they put everywhere... Or whatever...)

-MarkM-

So basically you are proposing updating "multicoin" to the latest bitcoin code?

Which, considering how old a version of Bitcoin multicoin was based on, means pretty much starting from scratch from the new bitcoin code...

-MarkM-

I never use conf files, except for those ancient multicoin-based coins like the old GeistGeld and Tenebrix.

If for some reason I need to use a port other than the default I put it on the commandline in my start-the-daemon script.

Usually I do not put it on the commandline though because to do so I'd have to go digging into the source-code to discover what the heck the default port actually is, since that is the port I'd put there anyway unless it was one of those stupid crapcoins that forgot to change its port from whichever coin it was cloned from; and those coins I usually try to avoid.

-MarkM-

NXT is too mundane because it uses Java, this is far superior technology, completely devoid of code; a technology so advanced it is indistinguishable from vapourware.

-MarkM-

What company handles the exchange back end?

I had thought that Buttercoin was mostly a closed source system, in which the only thing the released as free open source software was basically a sale funnal site that sends all the actual work to their servers, so that all it let you do was put your own logos on your own site while really sending all the actual trading / offers to their servers?

-MarkM-

Unthinkingbit's original approach to the second to the post problem was to award bounties to the first few of a thing instead of only to the first.

I have seen that for pretty much all the bounties that I have noticed. Is that not the case with the ATM bounty or is that approach not a good one?

-MarkM-

Did you rescan / re-index?

-MarkM-

Bitcoin of course, beyond that mostly what has been learned is what does not work.

For example we tried to find the lowest time-between-blocks that would be practical, since many people seemed to think that Satoshi's choice of ten minutes was too slow.

Not adjusting difficulty was tried too, and that was a disaster.

One thing that still seems pretty clear is that if a coin does not have over 50% of the hash rate that is a very bad situation to be in, so bad that until Bitcoin had massively more SHA256 hashing power than all the supercomputers in the world it was scarily insecure and even then was still way too vulnerable because of all the GPUs out there that were not hashing for Bitcoin and because it would be ridiculously cheap for a hostile government or corporation or terrorist group or whatever to overpower it simply by making themselves some ASICs. Only now that Bitcoin is starting to get ASICs itself is it starting to look like it might realistically manage to adequately secure itself.

Because of the insanely high cost of securing a blockchain I have tended mostly to figure the merged mined coins have looked like they might have the best chance of maybe being able to be secured, and only if the majority of bitcoin miners merge them.

Since so far none of the fast coins other than GeistGeld are able to be merged mined it is not yet known how fast is too fast to be practical, nor whether being faster than some particular speed bars a coin from being able to be merged mined effectively thus forces it to absorb the entire cost of securing a blockchain, which as we have seen is many many millions of dollars for hardware plus a whole lot for electricity too. Those costs seem almost prohibitive even when sharing them among many chains...

-MarkM-

Earthcoin dates back to before GeistGeld? That sounds unlikely.

Or is fast being used as a technical term here dividing up the many less than a minute per block coins so that fast refers to some specific number of seconds target and each second or five seconds or somesuch gets a different label, like under ten seconds is hyperfast, ten to 19 is superfast, 20 to 29 is extrafast, 30 to 39 is ... etc?

How many seconds is it, anyway? Presumably less than five (Liquidcoin, possibly among others, is five, isn't it?)

I do not recall GeistGeld's exact number of seconds either off-hand, but it is so crazy fast that it is possibly maybe even too fast to really be practical in realistic network situations. How fast exactly is WorldCoin and how much actual load has it been tested with?

Has it even been tested long enough to ensure that a year or few of blocks all reasonably full works fine on normal people's normal home nodes, or is it aimed at dedicated server machines in datacentres on high speed internet feeds?

I am interested because some people have reported that GeistGeld's blocks are too fast; doublec for example has suggested that it should be slowed down, its sheer speed is a big part of why it is on so few pools, and why doublec dropped it from his.

-MarkM-

The network is hardly started and already it cannot handle the load?

-MarkM-

Well I definitely do get confused among all the different exchanges.

Maybe it was some other coin that supposedly had a huge pre-mine, gave it to an exchange, and later supposedly destroyed it.

Or maybe it was merely some other exchange not that one.

-MarkM-

Its an acronym. Maybe something like DIgital Oversight for the Global Economy or whatever.

All governments' expenditures, tax income etc etc can be all out there in public for the public to oversee...

But don't tell them that yet! Pretend its just a silly internet meme for now...

-MarkM-

The coins that the plots and tables at http://galaxies.mygamesonline.org/digitalisassets.html show skyrocketing way up above Bitcoin already consider their existence justified.

Justifying mining them though is harder, they need a lot of transaction fee volume before they can reasonably hope to get enough miners in order to be able to justify going back to using blockchain technology as their method of securing their ledgers.

Blockchains are insanely expensive to secure, it is really hard to justify using blockchains actually.

Merged mining though was hoped to be able to make the use of blockchains at least a little more justifiable.

-MarkM-