That is YOUR reply I quoted. You must have read the answer at one point, because YOU commented that your question was answered, but I will summarize it again here just to be perfectly clear. - Blackcoin use POS 0.3.0 protocol which has no known vulnerabilities at this time
- The "attack" suggested is impossible because coins do not stake on age alone, therefore making deposits at small intervals in no way guarantees you will generate POS blocks at those intervals. In fact splitting coins to generate these intervals will make the chance of staking at each interval even less
Right, it uses "POS 0.3.0 protocol which has no known vulnerabilities at this time" in the context of a PoS/PoW hybrid, right? It has never been tested in the context of pure PoS, right? I will restate: If i said said anything further about it on the blackcoin thread, I would have been ran out of there and labeled as a FUDer. Similar to how what I am saying now, not on the blackcoin thread, is drawing so much heat. I'm not giving you heat, i'm only answering your question.. again. Saying Sunny King's fix only applies to POS/POW hybrids is incorrect, it fixed the POS protocol. Period. The timebomb attack is not feasible because coins do not stake on age alone, there are other factors. Even if you could guarantee that all your coins ages were spaced at a minimum interval there is no guarantee they will all stake at their intervals. Also POS blocks have a target time interval, so coins that were eligible to stake too soon would not generate blocks any faster than the target interval, there is no way that one person could force their coins to be the ones to generate stake for many consecutive intervals. This attack is pure nonsense. But Sunny King fixed PoS in the context of PoS/PoW hybrid, not pure PoS. Right? Since there have not been any other pure POS coins yes the fix was originally applied to a POS/POW hybrid. Nevertheless the fix is for the POS protocol and did nothing to POW. The fix ensured that POS was a secure way to generate blocks to secure a blockchain. If you know of any vulnerabilities in POS please make them known so they can be addressed. I don't know the specific vulnerabilities, I'm not saying that there necessarily are any. My argument is purely from a logic standpoint. If the security of PoS was in any way dependent upon PoW in the PoS/PoW hybrid system, then just because the PoS security flaws were fixed in that context doesn't mean they will be fixed when PoS is standing alone, or that new security flaws wouldn't be introduced when PoS stands alone. So the question is, did Sunny build/fix PoS to be completely secure standing alone or was it in anyway dependent on PoW? I guess this is ultimately what I am trying to figure out. Sunny built them to be dependent on each other. POW is a proven system. POW/POS is a proven system. POS is not and may be vulnerable to attack. OP's point is that a POW/POS system with very small rewards creates a weak POW system that someone could exploit and it would essentially be the same as a standalone POS system which may be vulnerable. You clearly did not understand the OP. That is not the OP's point at all. The OP's point is that POW/POS hybrid is vulnerable to a double spend attack by a POS block negating/orphaing a POW chain with enough blocks to have confirmed transactions. I expect you have never looked at the source code of a POW/POW hybrid, because it it very clear POS and POW are not dependent on each other in any way. They are completely separate methods. It is true that POS only has never been tried before, but the POS system is secure in itself and has no known vulnerabilities. POW is a proven system with a known vulnerability called 51% attack which is why POS was added. POS/POW may be vulnerable by the method explained in the OP. POS alone, again has no known vulnerabilities besides a 51% attack which would require owning 51% of the coins which would mean you already basically control the money supply and would devalue your own coins. looking at your posts and the OP "double spend attack requires 1 PoS block and low hashing power." So wouldn't this method of attack require that you control/know precisely when you are going to receive a PoS block, so that you can orphan your transactions that you confirmed on the PoW chain you control (otherwise somebody else will have a greater chance of getting the next PoS block, unless you control 51%)? You made it sound earlier like it is not possible to control when a PoS block will be generated: "The "attack" suggested is impossible because coins do not stake on age alone, therefore making deposits at small intervals in no way guarantees you will generate POS blocks at those intervals. In fact splitting coins to generate these intervals will make the chance of staking at each interval even less" So, are there ways to control/know the timing of PoS block generation even though coinage is not the sole determining factor? If so, wouldn't that mean pure PoS is vulnerable too? Attacker should wait for 1 PoS block and delay announcing this block. So, in that case, what is preventing an attacker from waiting for multiple PoS blocks and delaying announcing the multiple PoS blocks to form a string of PoS blocks similar to a TX attack chain like the one anonymousg64 was talking about? If it is not possible to wait/delay more than one block per wallet, then one could easy use multiple wallets. If the timing of generating/announcing a single PoS block can be controlled, what is preventing reiteration of the process to control a series of single blocks? Also, what would prevent another block from being announced at that same time or right before you? Say you control when you can announce your PoS block, but does that mean you can control when other people generate/announce theirs? im still on the fence can someone explain how this stops someone from generating lots of PoS blocks 20 days in the future from a bunch of TX's with small interval, whether through one or multiple wallets ss << nStakeModifier;
ss << nTimeBlockFrom << nTxPrevOffset << txPrev.nTime << prevout.n << nTimeTx;
hashProofOfStake = Hash(ss.begin(), ss.end());
if(CBigNum(hashProofOfStake) > bnCoinDayWeight * bnTargetPerCoinDay)
return false;
im not well enough versed with the code to know what these variable names imply |
|
|
|
That is YOUR reply I quoted. You must have read the answer at one point, because YOU commented that your question was answered, but I will summarize it again here just to be perfectly clear. - Blackcoin use POS 0.3.0 protocol which has no known vulnerabilities at this time
- The "attack" suggested is impossible because coins do not stake on age alone, therefore making deposits at small intervals in no way guarantees you will generate POS blocks at those intervals. In fact splitting coins to generate these intervals will make the chance of staking at each interval even less
Right, it uses "POS 0.3.0 protocol which has no known vulnerabilities at this time" in the context of a PoS/PoW hybrid, right? It has never been tested in the context of pure PoS, right? I will restate: If i said said anything further about it on the blackcoin thread, I would have been ran out of there and labeled as a FUDer. Similar to how what I am saying now, not on the blackcoin thread, is drawing so much heat. I'm not giving you heat, i'm only answering your question.. again. Saying Sunny King's fix only applies to POS/POW hybrids is incorrect, it fixed the POS protocol. Period. The timebomb attack is not feasible because coins do not stake on age alone, there are other factors. Even if you could guarantee that all your coins ages were spaced at a minimum interval there is no guarantee they will all stake at their intervals. Also POS blocks have a target time interval, so coins that were eligible to stake too soon would not generate blocks any faster than the target interval, there is no way that one person could force their coins to be the ones to generate stake for many consecutive intervals. This attack is pure nonsense. But Sunny King fixed PoS in the context of PoS/PoW hybrid, not pure PoS. Right? Since there have not been any other pure POS coins yes the fix was originally applied to a POS/POW hybrid. Nevertheless the fix is for the POS protocol and did nothing to POW. The fix ensured that POS was a secure way to generate blocks to secure a blockchain. If you know of any vulnerabilities in POS please make them known so they can be addressed. I don't know the specific vulnerabilities, I'm not saying that there necessarily are any. My argument is purely from a logic standpoint. If the security of PoS was in any way dependent upon PoW in the PoS/PoW hybrid system, then just because the PoS security flaws were fixed in that context doesn't mean they will be fixed when PoS is standing alone, or that new security flaws wouldn't be introduced when PoS stands alone. So the question is, did Sunny build/fix PoS to be completely secure standing alone or was it in anyway dependent on PoW? I guess this is ultimately what I am trying to figure out. Sunny built them to be dependent on each other. POW is a proven system. POW/POS is a proven system. POS is not and may be vulnerable to attack. OP's point is that a POW/POS system with very small rewards creates a weak POW system that someone could exploit and it would essentially be the same as a standalone POS system which may be vulnerable. You clearly did not understand the OP. That is not the OP's point at all. The OP's point is that POW/POS hybrid is vulnerable to a double spend attack by a POS block negating/orphaing a POW chain with enough blocks to have confirmed transactions. I expect you have never looked at the source code of a POW/POW hybrid, because it it very clear POS and POW are not dependent on each other in any way. They are completely separate methods. It is true that POS only has never been tried before, but the POS system is secure in itself and has no known vulnerabilities. POW is a proven system with a known vulnerability called 51% attack which is why POS was added. POS/POW may be vulnerable by the method explained in the OP. POS alone, again has no known vulnerabilities besides a 51% attack which would require owning 51% of the coins which would mean you already basically control the money supply and would devalue your own coins. looking at your posts and the OP "double spend attack requires 1 PoS block and low hashing power." So wouldn't this method of attack require that you control/know precisely when you are going to receive a PoS block, so that you can orphan your transactions that you confirmed on the PoW chain you control (otherwise somebody else will have a greater chance of getting the next PoS block, unless you control 51%)? You made it sound earlier like it is not possible to control when a PoS block will be generated: "The "attack" suggested is impossible because coins do not stake on age alone, therefore making deposits at small intervals in no way guarantees you will generate POS blocks at those intervals. In fact splitting coins to generate these intervals will make the chance of staking at each interval even less" So, are there ways to control/know the timing of PoS block generation even though coinage is not the sole determining factor? If so, wouldn't that mean pure PoS is vulnerable too? |
|
|
|
That is YOUR reply I quoted. You must have read the answer at one point, because YOU commented that your question was answered, but I will summarize it again here just to be perfectly clear. - Blackcoin use POS 0.3.0 protocol which has no known vulnerabilities at this time
- The "attack" suggested is impossible because coins do not stake on age alone, therefore making deposits at small intervals in no way guarantees you will generate POS blocks at those intervals. In fact splitting coins to generate these intervals will make the chance of staking at each interval even less
Right, it uses "POS 0.3.0 protocol which has no known vulnerabilities at this time" in the context of a PoS/PoW hybrid, right? It has never been tested in the context of pure PoS, right? I will restate: If i said said anything further about it on the blackcoin thread, I would have been ran out of there and labeled as a FUDer. Similar to how what I am saying now, not on the blackcoin thread, is drawing so much heat. I'm not giving you heat, i'm only answering your question.. again. Saying Sunny King's fix only applies to POS/POW hybrids is incorrect, it fixed the POS protocol. Period. The timebomb attack is not feasible because coins do not stake on age alone, there are other factors. Even if you could guarantee that all your coins ages were spaced at a minimum interval there is no guarantee they will all stake at their intervals. Also POS blocks have a target time interval, so coins that were eligible to stake too soon would not generate blocks any faster than the target interval, there is no way that one person could force their coins to be the ones to generate stake for many consecutive intervals. This attack is pure nonsense. But Sunny King fixed PoS in the context of PoS/PoW hybrid, not pure PoS. Right? Since there have not been any other pure POS coins yes the fix was originally applied to a POS/POW hybrid. Nevertheless the fix is for the POS protocol and did nothing to POW. The fix ensured that POS was a secure way to generate blocks to secure a blockchain. If you know of any vulnerabilities in POS please make them known so they can be addressed. I don't know the specific vulnerabilities, I'm not saying that there necessarily are any. My argument is purely from a logic standpoint. If the security of PoS was in any way dependent upon PoW in the PoS/PoW hybrid system, then just because the PoS security flaws were fixed in that context doesn't mean they will be fixed when PoS is standing alone, or that new security flaws wouldn't be introduced when PoS stands alone. So the question is, did Sunny build/fix PoS to be completely secure standing alone or was it in anyway dependent on PoW? I guess this is ultimately what I am trying to figure out. |
|
|
|
That is YOUR reply I quoted. You must have read the answer at one point, because YOU commented that your question was answered, but I will summarize it again here just to be perfectly clear. - Blackcoin use POS 0.3.0 protocol which has no known vulnerabilities at this time
- The "attack" suggested is impossible because coins do not stake on age alone, therefore making deposits at small intervals in no way guarantees you will generate POS blocks at those intervals. In fact splitting coins to generate these intervals will make the chance of staking at each interval even less
Right, it uses "POS 0.3.0 protocol which has no known vulnerabilities at this time" in the context of a PoS/PoW hybrid, right? It has never been tested in the context of pure PoS, right? I will restate: If i said said anything further about it on the blackcoin thread, I would have been ran out of there and labeled as a FUDer. Similar to how what I am saying now, not on the blackcoin thread, is drawing so much heat. I'm not giving you heat, i'm only answering your question.. again. Saying Sunny King's fix only applies to POS/POW hybrids is incorrect, it fixed the POS protocol. Period. The timebomb attack is not feasible because coins do not stake on age alone, there are other factors. Even if you could guarantee that all your coins ages were spaced at a minimum interval there is no guarantee they will all stake at their intervals. Also POS blocks have a target time interval, so coins that were eligible to stake too soon would not generate blocks any faster than the target interval, there is no way that one person could force their coins to be the ones to generate stake for many consecutive intervals. This attack is pure nonsense. But Sunny King fixed PoS in the context of PoS/PoW hybrid, not pure PoS. Right? |
|
|
|
That is YOUR reply I quoted. You must have read the answer at one point, because YOU commented that your question was answered, but I will summarize it again here just to be perfectly clear. - Blackcoin use POS 0.3.0 protocol which has no known vulnerabilities at this time
- The "attack" suggested is impossible because coins do not stake on age alone, therefore making deposits at small intervals in no way guarantees you will generate POS blocks at those intervals. In fact splitting coins to generate these intervals will make the chance of staking at each interval even less
Right, it uses "POS 0.3.0 protocol which has no known vulnerabilities at this time" in the context of a PoS/PoW hybrid, right? It has never been tested in the context of pure PoS, right? Was it designed for pure PoS? Wasn't it designed by Sunny King for a PoS/PoW hybrid (peercoin)? The second point you reiterated seems legit to me. I will restate: If i said said anything further about it on the blackcoin thread, I would have been ran out of there and labeled as a FUDer. Similar to how what I am saying now, not on the blackcoin thread, is drawing so much heat. |
|
|
|
This is a joke. Nice try to spread FUD about other coins, rat4, to try and promote your pure PoS blackcoin. How is it that Blackcoin prevents attack forks as a pure PoS coin, again? You say "a sequential chain of PoW blocks can be mined in a flash." Which is not true. Sure, you could mine all of the PoW blocks that occur sequentially, but there will be many, many more PoS blocks that interrupt those far and few apart PoW blocks. In a PoS/PoW hybrid there is no way to predict or control whether or not the next block will be PoS or PoW and therefore you cannot guarantee you will be in control of a long stream of blocks unless you have 51% of the PoW and PoS power. Now, this brings up an issue with pure PoS coins such as your Blackcoin... That I have yet to be seen answered in any technical detail. How, when it is pure PoS and it IS known that every block in a row will be PoS, can you prevent an attack such as the one anonymousg64 brings up: im still on the fence can someone explain how this stops someone from generating lots of PoS blocks 20 days in the future from a bunch of TX's with small interval, whether through one or multiple wallets ss << nStakeModifier;
ss << nTimeBlockFrom << nTxPrevOffset << txPrev.nTime << prevout.n << nTimeTx;
hashProofOfStake = Hash(ss.begin(), ss.end());
if(CBigNum(hashProofOfStake) > bnCoinDayWeight * bnTargetPerCoinDay)
return false;
im not well enough versed with the code to know what these variable names imply Without PoW blocks to interrupt such an attack, how is it prevented? This thread of yours is in really bad taste, rat4, you should find better ways of promoting your coin. I await your reply, and your explanation as to how PoS coins are safe from a TX/coinage attack. This was answered many times in the black coin thread and here you are asking it again. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=469640.msg5971244#msg5971244Oh look at YOUR REPLY https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=469640.msg5971375#msg5971375
Thank you both, my fears have been quelled and I've learned some new stuff:)
So why are you here bringing it up again today in a new thread? Because the answers that you speak of are just links to a comment from Sunny King, which actually only applies to PoS/PoW hybrids- as that is what he was working with. Am I mistaken? I still await a technical response that pertains to pure PoS specifically. If i said said anything further about it on the blackcoin thread, I would have been ran out of there and labeled as a FUDer. I will patiently await a technical response which pertains specifically to pure PoS and a technical response to my initial comment which also outlines why I think PoS/PoW hybrid systems are not vulnerable in the manner that rat4 proposes. |
|
|
|
In brighter news, I just bought some more Mint since the price has dipped down  |
|
|
|
Or he is sleeping.
This is not an attack on either Mint or Shacoin, this is purely an observation on hybrid pow/pos systems. If you want to discuss PoS security i do invite you to join IRC ##blackcoin on freenode and seek out rat4 there when he is awake.
Also, i'm not the dev of blackcoin
Yeah, as a professional he has more important business than engaging in this peeing contest. Make what you will of his analysis, do your own due diligence and try to come to rational conclusions based on what you learn rather than your emotional ties to this or that coin. You are to be called out for the blatant and utter hypocrisy of Fudding the Blackcoin thread for days with inflammatory dirt, and then having hissy-fits when the Blackcoin dev weighs in with a technical statement, and you crying "fud, fud!" Shame on you all for your childishness and abysmal conduct, which only hinders the progress of cryptocurrency. Examine your motivations more thoroughly. He has more important business to do? Yet he starts this thread? And then walks away? It was important enough for him to start the thread but not important enough for him to reply to responses? Still, nobody has addressed what I brought up and nobody has addressed the "time bomb" that greentea brought up. Now you are just trying to defame us on a personal level instead of addressing the content of what we said. Examine the motivations of your dev more thoroughly. May I suggest we leave this discussion to technical users, and give them their time? No need to be impatient, the answers will be in this thread. Sorry for this spam comment. I'll delete my earlier posts. I had nothing to add anyways. I suggest we do the same so the thread is clean and can be constructive  I won't delete my initial post as it contains content which I want addressed, but I do regret having been so offensive in the manner of its presentation. Nonetheless, it is the content that matters. |
|
|
|
Or he is sleeping.
This is not an attack on either Mint or Shacoin, this is purely an observation on hybrid pow/pos systems. If you want to discuss PoS security i do invite you to join IRC ##blackcoin on freenode and seek out rat4 there when he is awake.
Also, i'm not the dev of blackcoin
Yeah, as a professional he has more important business than engaging in this peeing contest. Make what you will of his analysis, do your own due diligence and try to come to rational conclusions based on what you learn rather than your emotional ties to this or that coin. You are to be called out for the blatant and utter hypocrisy of Fudding the Blackcoin thread for days with inflammatory dirt, and then having hissy-fits when the Blackcoin dev weighs in with a technical statement, and you crying "fud, fud!" Shame on you all for your childishness and abysmal conduct, which only hinders the progress of cryptocurrency. Examine your motivations more thoroughly. He has more important business to do? Yet he starts this thread? And then walks away? It was important enough for him to start the thread but not important enough for him to reply to responses? Still, nobody has addressed what I brought up and nobody has addressed the "time bomb" that greentea brought up. Now you are just trying to defame us on a personal level instead of addressing the content of what we said. Examine the motivations of your dev more thoroughly. May I suggest we leave this discussion to technical users, and give them their time? No need to be impatient, the answers will be in this thread. Sorry for this spam comment. Agreed. I will wait patiently for a technical response to what I said about the relative security of PoS/PoW vs pure PoS, and to the "timebomb". |
|
|
|
Or he is sleeping.
This is not an attack on either Mint or Shacoin, this is purely an observation on hybrid pow/pos systems. If you want to discuss PoS security i do invite you to join IRC ##blackcoin on freenode and seek out rat4 there when he is awake.
Also, i'm not the dev of blackcoin
Yeah, as a professional he has more important business than engaging in this peeing contest. Make what you will of his analysis, do your own due diligence and try to come to rational conclusions based on what you learn rather than your emotional ties to this or that coin. You are to be called out for the blatant and utter hypocrisy of Fudding the Blackcoin thread for days with inflammatory dirt, and then having hissy-fits when the Blackcoin dev weighs in with a technical statement, and you crying "fud, fud!" Shame on you all for your childishness and abysmal conduct, which only hinders the progress of cryptocurrency. Examine your motivations more thoroughly. He has more important business to do? Yet he starts this thread? And then walks away? It was important enough for him to start the thread but not important enough for him to reply to responses? Still, nobody has addressed what I brought up and nobody has addressed the "time bomb" that greentea brought up. Now you are just trying to defame us on a personal level instead of addressing the content of what we said. Examine the motivations of your dev more thoroughly. |
|
|
|
It's true that the other coin was somewhat premined as can be seen pages 10-20 of your thread and that a bunch of dishonest people are involved in it That group rented for 10 days a couple of GHs for this operation. Blackcoin was not premined but was instamined. Yup. Don't dare try to say anything along those lines over on their thread though, they will take quick offense. It's a shame new users of coins don't read through the thread and actually learn the history of the coin before they buy into it. |
|
|
|
1. Mint is not a person.
2. SHACoin is not a person.
3. rat4 is not actively promoting PoS or blackcoin
This thread is about a potential security issue with PoW/PoS hybrids. Maybe it's true, maybe not. I don't know the technicals.
Same for PoS. I dont know how secure it is. I dont know the technicals.
I have asked many times on the blackcoin thread, and so have others, as to how pure PoS is safe. No reply, other than directing me to Sunny's answers, which actually only pertain to PoS/PoW hybrids if I am not mistaken. |
|
|
|
Yes, this is purely a discussion for us. The connection to BlackCoin is purely rat4 being the dev of it.
The earlier blockchain stuck we had for BlackCoin has nothing to do with this and is not adding to the discussion so far. We are talking hybrid PoW/PoS coins and their security.
Well, now we are also talking pure PoS coins and their security- which is much less tested and founded. I still await a technical response as to how pure PoS prevents the type of transaction/coinage attacks that anonymousg64 has outlined before. |
|
|
|
This is a joke. Nice try to spread FUD about other coins, rat4, to try and promote your pure PoS blackcoin. How is it that Blackcoin prevents attack forks as a pure PoS coin, again? You say "a sequential chain of PoW blocks can be mined in a flash." Which is not true. Sure, you could mine all of the PoW blocks that occur sequentially, but there will be many, many more PoS blocks that interrupt those far and few apart PoW blocks. In a PoS/PoW hybrid there is no way to predict or control whether or not the next block will be PoS or PoW and therefore you cannot guarantee you will be in control of a long stream of blocks unless you have 51% of the PoW and PoS power. Now, this brings up an issue with pure PoS coins such as your Blackcoin... That I have yet to be seen answered in any technical detail. How, when it is pure PoS and it IS known that every block in a row will be PoS, can you prevent an attack such as the one anonymousg64 brings up: im still on the fence can someone explain how this stops someone from generating lots of PoS blocks 20 days in the future from a bunch of TX's with small interval, whether through one or multiple wallets ss << nStakeModifier;
ss << nTimeBlockFrom << nTxPrevOffset << txPrev.nTime << prevout.n << nTimeTx;
hashProofOfStake = Hash(ss.begin(), ss.end());
if(CBigNum(hashProofOfStake) > bnCoinDayWeight * bnTargetPerCoinDay)
return false;
im not well enough versed with the code to know what these variable names imply Without PoW blocks to interrupt such an attack, how is it prevented? This thread of yours is in really bad taste, rat4, you should find better ways of promoting your coin. I await your reply, and your explanation as to how PoS coins are safe from a TX/coinage attack. |
|
|
|
I hope everyone is having a wonderful day/night! Please remember to Like our Facebook page and invite friends and family to do the same. With over 1000 Likes our community is growing everyday! Through Facebook you will also recieve some of the latest information concerning Mintcoin including New Mintcoin Merchants. https://www.facebook.com/MintCoin+1. And this is a great multi-coin group to tip others on facebook with, you can tip anybody on facebook using this app not just people within the group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/MultiCoinTipping/708234319240257/?notif_t=group_activity It's a great way to introduce people to mintcoin and give them some incentive to look more into what mintcoin is all about. I've been doing some mintcoin tip rains every now and then on there. There is also a mintcoin specific tipping group, but in terms of increasing exposure it makes more sense to tip people who don't yet have mintcoins or know about mintcoin: https://www.facebook.com/groups/mintcoin/ |
|
|
|
The Android wallet represents an open field run through a wide open hole in the other teams line. If we get it MINT will become top dog.
The thing holding BTC back from mass adoption is specialized equipment. Imagine if anyone can MINT on their android device. Mass adoption!!!!
What's it going to take to get this initiative going?
Is there a bounty thread out there for the android wallet? I know the first post tells that there is a bounty for that but no exact figures or statements. I also think that such a wallet is the key for mass adoption! Anyone knows a guy who can build such a wallet? If there is a bounty thread for that please tell me about this. Otherwise let's start such a bounty thread! I'd throw 300k of mint in. I can commit to donate as well. I believe one is already in the works, although I have not seen an update lately. My understanding is that there is a bounty from the dev but it couldn't hurt to add more on top of that, an android wallet would certainly be worth it. |
|
|
|
Some progress on the Mintcoin Fund ( crossposted on mintcointalk.com) - Yesterday, I received the premine. Mint was at 20 satoshi, I placed a buy order at sell order at 21, expecting people would buyt it (it could have been the opposite and the price going down to 19 satoshi; I am not sure I should do this again).
- Today, I sent the BTC conversion to a fiat exchange (the beloved and most secure bitcoin-central.net). It should arrive in one hour and then I will place a sell order I don't know at which price yet (market price, I guess, since BTC is falling down)
- Tomorrow, it will be converted in Euros and I will transfer it to my own account with SEPA transfer
- On the second of April, I should receive the Euro equivalent
- From then on, I will contact the French administration will all due papers. They will read the bylaws, hopefully say the bylaws are acceptable and will publish the creation on the Journal officiel (Official Registry).
- At this moment, we will make a major announcement. I will announce it in advance so that you guys get prepared to a contextual pump (contextual pump = not a pump because of market manipulation but because of an external even, here the announcement). Those who wish could sell their MINT and buy them back once the pump has faded (there is the risk is doesn't fade away and so that it cost you money - i any case, it would cost you your coin age). The risk/reward ratio is pretty good IMHO, but the risk is not zero, anyway
- Then I will initiate two things: First, opening up a bank account, probably in a bank which is crowdfunding-friendly (I have my sources on this). Second, I will send the fiscal administration a request for rescript, that is an written, compelling evidence that they will accept tax-reduction for the Fund. If they say "yes", great, we can start moving. If they say "no", we will be allowed some time to change the wording so that they agree with it.
So, this is the plan Thank you for keeping us updated, David! Sounds like things are in motion |
|
|
|
Regarding marketing and mass mint adoption. I believe one of the best ways to promote mint is buy products with mint. Even a small purchase like 500 mint or $2 makes a difference. See the first post for mint merchants. Go mint  I agree completely! |
|
|
|
neilh, you should realize it's mainly me who trashes BC. The rest of the community mainly focuses on Mint development.
So even though you didn't direct your question of "why trash blackcoin" at me I will answer:
Blackcoin came out 10 days after Mintcoin with a 10 day distribution. A complete copy cat that only had one way to ride the success of Mintcoin wave: Instamine the coin in 10 days. They claim to be original because of this different distribution method. They also differentiate themselves by paying a measly 1% interest on their instamined coin.
Blackcoin then came up with a good idea. The BC multipool. Again, not an original idea as we have seen multipools selling alts for BTC for years now.
It's a good idea for a coin with a small marketcap, because even a small 2 BTC buy at a price above current market price can artificially increase the price by a 300-500 satoshi margin. This is a great way to trick gullible investors into buying high. Then they get dumped on by the people who know what's happening. Then the process repeats. What is happening now is that only true believers are holding the coin. No one is buying anymore, and so the volume is dying as manipulators set their sights elsewhere.
The truth about blackcoin is that it holds no real value. It's literally as if someone put 74 million coins on the market and then said "Buy our wonderful coin, it's better than bitcoin!"
I'll agree you are the main person, but there are others that do it, or at least post little snide remarks regularly. The fact BC is a low interest rate is a plus, and also the total PoW coins millions, not billions is also a plus for me. I actually had Mint when it was at 4 sat. Made a very nice profit and moved to BC. I still like to read this thread to see how Mint is progressing. So I see your posts and others all time, but for the most part ignore it. ECC is much more similar to Mint, but that hasn't had the price increase like BC has it, which I personally think is why you have a problem with BC!  Neilh I appreciate you trying to bridge between the BC and MINT communities. I have done the same before in the past over on the BC forum, and well, it didn't go so well to say the least (I've been called a MINT f*ggot, a troll, etc) ... I have given up. You should look through the history. The amount of hostility between the two communities is rather unfortunate. But, I don't think there is any way to change this. Some people over there do not like MINT, some people over here do not like BC- this does not reflect upon the entirety on the communities, though. I still believe in working together or at least in peaceful co-existence. The bashing of other coins is not a good way to promote one's own coins, lets keep it classy. After all, talking about BC on here or MINT on the BC forum only gives greater visibility to the wrong coin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
