Can anyone find the common factor behind all these coins?
Not for the last half-dozen but the others are all by “Crypto Currency Preservation”. The given URL http://cryptocurrencypreservation.com is a dead link but the “CCP Commercial coins” panel on http://www.hotdogcoin.info/ lists all but that last half dozen. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Maybe this happened again some else where ?
LARGE BITCOIN FARM IN THAILAND BURNS DOWN IN MASSIVE FIRE
Perhaps a bit too literal in their interpretation of “proof of burn”? Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
I note that you operate from within the EU, have you taken legal advice on whether there is enough distance between the brand identity of Nectar coin and that of Nectar points? http://www.nectar.com It's probably too late to change the regrettable choice of brand name but I strongly urge you to make some basic visual changes to establish a lot of “clear, blue water” between “Nectar” (the coin) and “Nectar” (the points). Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Someone tries to rescue this coin, interesting  I see it an interesting datum point. Algo-branded coins (in which the algo is basically the brand, e.g. quark, sha1coin, qubitcoin, groestlcoin, whirlcoin, etc.) form a natural category in the domain and the members of this set have met with mixed success, some have thrived, some have languished. I'm interested to see if I can discern any reliable pattern that might distinguish between, say, Skeincoin and Groestlcoin (both still going strong) and the likes of Fuguecoin and Roulettecoin (both languishing). Then there's the brands that attempt to distinguish themselves by using a specific algo (albeit the algo is not part of the coin's brand name) such as Primio (nearly defunct) with JH and Doomcoin (defunct) with Luffa. Then there's the raft of coins branded with an explicit “folklore combiner” such as Chaincoin, X11coin, Twecoin, N5coin, etc. where again, some fell on stony ground and some are still going strong. I'm entertaining the idea that it'd be a worthwhile exercise to develop my noodlings on Minkiz into something more focused and useful, a mix of curio shop and engineering museum (broadly in sympathy with the modest curation of SiFcoin undertaken by cinnamon_carter). In pursuit of this, I'm developing a general-purpose (RPC-based) block explorer in Python (as a Pyramid view) which is currently monitoring several chains: https://minkiz.co/acmeIt's slated to have an RDF back-end ... I already have running Python code that reads the blockchain into RDF, to which I intend to add a Python implementation of Fresnel that should help standardise the serialisation. If anyone wants to synch to any of the chains monitored by ACME, the node IP is: 5.9.56.229 Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Anyone have a working node or a recent blockchain?
I have both. I'd be grateful if you posted the output from getpeerinfo. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
ssshhhh!!.............it's alive......
Is it still alive? www.fuguecoin.org is unresponsive, the block explorer is down, as are all the services on fuguecoin.org . No pool seems to be operating. Anyone have a working node or a recent blockchain? Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
I think you might need to beef up the argument for the app to be backed by a cryptocurrency because atm that rationale is a bit weak. The list of benefits accruing from merely using the app appears to be largely independent of the implementation, acting to reduce the apparent relevance/appropriateness of a cryptocurrency component. More pointedly, what specific features accrue from the app being based on a cryptocurrency rather than, say, one of the conventional “social reward” systems? All applications sales will have 30% deducted and used to buy HMC to keep the price at a healthy postion.
...
FUNDING BREAKDOWN
Apple App Development - $15k
Website development - $10k
Marketing Materials - $1500
Online Marketing - $3500
Have you developed a spec for the website that enables you to be confident that $10k will be adequate to cover development? Also, I don't see any budgetary provision for website maintenance or for logistics of coin operations, is this perhaps just a reporting oversight or maybe these costs are bundled into one of the other totals? Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
I fail to see the point of your dissertation.
Good point, that's something I should have anticipated. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
As far as public awareness, the latest published poll, coming from the UK, shows that 72% of the people has heard of Bitcoin.
http://www.digitalcurrencycouncil.com/professional/the-bitcoin-barometer-a-study-of-sentiment-in-the-uk-toward-bitcoin/It's a very limited survey: quota-based sampling, weighted by census, online interviews with 527 “nationally representative adults aged 18+” conducted by Reputation Leaders Ltd. and likely obtained from an MROC. So that's n=527 from a population of 70000000+ and, because the sampling is quota-based, no estimate of sampling error is possible. Following the latest trend in survey methods, it basically canvasses respondents' views of other people's perceptions --- which is what you'll get from answers to the question “how do you view the reputation of these payment systems ...” and so, when interpreting the results, you also have to bear in mind the context in which these reputations have been acquired, a context which, for instance, includes these loaded phrases used by the British Daily Mail ... “If you are a computer genius you could make money by creating Bitcoins through 'data-mining.'” “troubled bitcoin digital currency” “the crisis-ridden bitcoin currency” “as Bitcoin lurched from one disaster to another” “Speculative investors have jumped into the bitcoin fray, ...” The survey reporting hints at conflicts of interests. Reputation Leaders sell reputation action services to the commercial providers in the market that they are surveying. There are clear hints with “nearly a quarter of Brits say Bitcoin has a fair to very bad reputation” (13% say "very good/excellent"). The collapse of “fair” and “very bad” obscures just what percentage said it had a “very bad” reputation - which could be as low as 0.00000001% or as high as 23.99999%. And there's an elephant ... “if you were seeking professional advice on bitcoin, which of the following individuals would you speak to” Someone certified by the ... DCC A financial advisor An accountant A lawyer. The DCC are the “Digital Currency Council” a New York-based web site outfit striving for credibility and whose regulatory remit (should they manage to achieve one) cannot cross the pond so the rationale for referencing a nascent US-based voluntary standards org in a UK-facing survey is a puzzle ... unless the survey is another example of the increasingly popular trend to exploit interest in low-power surveys to serve as a promotional clothes horse --- in this instance, for the DCC. That would explain the unlikely inclusion. Cheers Graham Edit, added URL |
|
|
|
The AI project and the impulses than somehow bring commissions or fees to the holders, I frankly did not get it.
I'd be very surprised if you did, it's unadulterated gobbledygook. You're saying all crypto - including potential blockchain 2.0 stuff -- is useless? No I'm not saying anything of the sort, not even inadvertently via Google translate. My statement offers no grounds for your implausible reformulation; the resolution of the anaphora (the “it” in my statement) is both grammatically and contextually unambiguous, nailed down by the inclusion of the pertinent quote. Your personal enthusiasm for Ethereum appears to be prompting you to make significant errors in reasoning. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
The AI project and the impulses than somehow bring commissions or fees to the holders, I frankly did not get it.
I'd be very surprised if you did, it's unadulterated gobbledygook. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Clonecoin vending machines. Wonderful
TBH, it's nothing more than a less dry presentation of: PREFIX skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#>
PREFIX doacc: <http://purl.org/net/bel-epa/doacc#>
SELECT DISTINCT(?pl as ?pow) WHERE
{ ?node skos:prefLabel ?label .
?node doacc:pow ?p .
?p skos:prefLabel ?pl
}
The vending machines might actually function one day, if I ever get round to completing the common-denominator template and releasing it as open source :-) However, as it stands, it's basically a thought experiment --- those who are reasonably well-versed in the domain will be aware that prime constellations are not something that can be switched in/out at will, gatra's implementation has resulted in a unique codebase that renders it effectively infeasible to include in any variant-by-template approach and reminds me that there has been little success in high-level abstract representations of code which leaves us bereft of any formal description of how the code works in this instance, so we're regrettably left with specification by implementation, which is generally considered not to be a Good Thing. The main aim of the presentation is to list the potential variations obtainable by a straightforward bitcoin PoW swap. Well, it used to be “all” but there's a few more that have been introduced recently that haven't yet been included. For the terminally curious, the inspiration for the template names comes from this hilarious 90's ad for Snickers: https://bel-epa.com/area51/library/marsad/snickersweb2-desktop.m4v / https://bel-epa.com/area51/library/marsad/snickersweb.mov^^^^ coupla trivia points - I'm fairly sure the agent is played by Christopher Ryan, (“Mike” in “The Young Ones”) and on youtube there's a less snappy version made for the US that was never shown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gyh2BKk0gWQCheers Graham |
|
|
|
Don't forget your neatly built web form that allowed you to custom order any "template milled" coins, "built from the Bitcoin 0.9.x core".
I don't see what could bring you to believe otherwise, and what story you must convince yourself of that you are helping the industry with such services.
Alas, you really have gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick (have you not read my sig?). It's purely an exercise in representation, the web forms are a(n albeit preliminary) rendering of the parameter profile of a coin, the “personality”, if you like. When a coin's personality profile is applied to the template, the coin is re-created, genesisblock, nonce and all. It's a replicator, with the recipe expressed using terms defined in an OWL ontology, an extension of Melvin Carvalho's blockchain-oriented CC ontology. Ultimately, I hope to be able to describe an arbitrary altcoin formally in RDF at a level of detail that affords the creation of a near-identical coin from the representation. Okay, it'll be missing a bunch of qualitative stuff and the characterisation of block reward schedules remains an unsolved issue but at least it's a start. Minkiz coins page is a fancypants rendering of the altcoin metadata in the DOACC project. DOACC is a catalogue of altcoins expressed in RDF with an accompanying OWL ontology. You could use Minkiz Linked Open Data explorer https://minkiz.co/lod to browse the catalogue if you like, or you can pose a SPARQL query via the web form interface on https://minkiz.co/sparqlHave you had a go on the Hodlerscope yet? https://minkiz.co/hodlerscopeI take it that you didn't spot the homage to GTA 3's Pay'n'Spray in the “Cash'n'Hash” headline?  Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
My information comes from carefully coordinated questioning [face to face] of the everyday person young to old over the past years.
Well that's not even a random sample, let alone “public opinion”. [Remember your Minkiz?] which only serve its cloner, not the industry as a whole. I'd assume since your site is down now that your Alt-Coin Foundry wasn't successful? Isn't that a decent enough perspective to show you what people want, and what they don't want?
Lol, Minkiz is a piece of internet art, it even has a title (lower right): ”Minkiz” by Higgins and Macfarlane. It's still in development and we've not yet articulated our thesis. The Foundry is an ironic presentation of the variety of hash algos and it's a particular whimsy of mine to develop the notion further as a means of characterising the population of parameter variants, possibly into sectors. If I can manage to get any recognisable results, I'll be publishing them using semantic web technology as part of the DOACC effort. Let's think about more than ourselves here,
I do find it difficult to reconcile this feelgood exhortation with the muscular tone adopted in the CoinShield ANN “Not only will Coinshield help you get your money back, it will be your tool to declare that coin scam/clone coin, and effectively destroy it.” I dare say you are genuinely positioning CoinShield as remedial device but any positive message is being completely drowned by the aggressive posture. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
stats have not been collected so move along now
Sure thing. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
There's been a $2bn decline in the total investment in the market since 01/2014
I'm perfectly happy to accept that as a fact. But it provides no support for a supposition that this decline is a result of negative public opinion engendered by increasing numbers of altcoins. lots of people (me included) agree 100% with that statement
Your declaration of personal agreement is uncontentious but, unless you've effected a (reliable) poll, you're on shaky ground about the “lots”. Whenever the proponent of an agenda drapes it in the flag of “public opinion”, I always look very carefully at the statistics that are claimed to support the argument. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Thing a lot of people fail to realize, is that more [clone] coins further promotes the negative public opinion of Crypto as a "Ponzi Scheme". It keeps new investors from dipping their toes in by some of the actions many people are taking.
Are you in a position to provide some actual evidence for this assertion? I have a for a year endlessly where have you been ? If you'll take a moment to actually read my post, you'll see that the question wasn't asked of you but of Videlicet. But if you yourself have actual evidence that “more [clone] coins further promotes the negative public opinion of Crypto as a "Ponzi Scheme". It keeps new investors from dipping their toes in”, then I'd be interested in seeing it. Otherwise, without at least minimal evidential support of a negative public opinion, the statement can never be anything other than supposition. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
