UKB, CDN, GMC, GRF, MBC, NKL, UNS ...

http://galaxies.mygamesonline.org/digitalisassets.html

-MarkM-

Not if "mining" involves nodes that find proof that you relayed I2P packets correctly for them crediting you coins, for example...

-MarkM-

Maybe 0.25 bitcoins was enough, or maybe the person who claims to have sent 0.25 was not the only victim and however much of the coins were not the OP sending to itself was enough.

Given the easy acceptance of totally obvious scams it might be more lucrative to just keep spawning new ones than to waste any time or effort trying to make any of them look at all believable.

-MarkM-

I have many hundreds of open orders.

I have many on the same price, even, because I have started back at one satoshi all over again many times by now.

I post my offers manually though, not via the API. Maybe the API has limitations the website/webpage version doesn't.

Heck I just started back at one satoshi again today and am still in the process of filling each satoshi of price yet again on the buy side.

Yes it is important to fill every satoshi of price, because otherwise people try to break, to sit on a price you didn't sit on yet.

If there are no prices sitting empty except where the buys meet the sells - in the "spread" region - they tend to go there, which means you can kind of hint them along.

There is a bot it seems for example on the I0Coin and IXCoin markets on Vircurex that very annoyingly tends to refuse to let even a tiny little offer get in front of it in the sense of being closer to the spread region that it is.

It keeps three batches of coins on hand to sell, and if you place an offer at a lower sell price than it's lowest sell price it cancels the highest price of its three orders and put it one satoshi lower in price than your offer.

Even if it is dealing with a few thousand at a time and you place an offer to sell only ten, it seemingly cannot stand the idea that you might get to sell your ten whatevers before it has managed to sell its few thousand. But if you place offers at every satoshi way down toward the spread-region, you can sometimes manage to get your offer to stick, maybe because it does not want to sell for less than it bought for or something.

Rather than play cancel-and-re-offer with it, just putting offers on every satoshi lets me get tons of offers in on the whole range it tries to play leapfrog with, so ultimately my average sell price is higher than the sell price it ends up leapfrogging its way down to.

On the buy side, the purpose is to uphold the price/value of the coin, so having an offer on every satoshi means every satoshi of price is going to cost who-ever tries to drive the price down. There are no freebies, each and every satoshi they want to drive the price down is going to cost them.

I have lately been placing offers to buy one or ten million divided by the satoshis of price, so that each satoshi they try to drive it down will cost them more (of what they are selling) than the previous satoshi of price did.

If you look at many order books, often it seems the opposite: everyone is crowding their buy offers up near the highest price, as soon as that thin crust is broken, the so called resistance maybe could be what it is I do not know the terminology really, but once the people clamouring to buy at high prices are sold to often from there on down is a crash waiting to happen, hardly anyone apparently wants to buy for low prices. No wonder we see crashes so often in cryptocoin, everyone apparently wants to buy high and failing that not buy at all!

Similarly on the sell side: everyone wants to sell cheap, but once you buy that thin crust of cheap sell offers, it is thin air going way the heck up, so prices seem to skyrocket because so few people, so far between, want to sell for high prices!

-MarkM-

It is easy to find the genius Devs: they are the ones dedicated to genius projects, busily hiring all the best coders they can get hold of because there is no way they can write all of the code for the genius projects all by themselves.

You might consider Jed for example, who created MtGox and sold it, created Ripple and is rumoured to have moved on from that too.

What did he move on to, though? I do not know. Evidently not to your genius projects?

The genius devs seem to usually pay top dollar to get the best coders and cryptographers and such, maybe you can convince them that it might also be worth their while to hire the best graphical artists, logo designers, catchy-phrase makers or whatever else it is that you do.

Do you also do marketing, by the way? As in high clickthrough ratio landing pages, high response email campaigns, maybe even to vast targeted email lists that you have built up during your career?

Maybe if you demonstrate your value by helping a genius dev maximise the value of the genius project that is currently taking up all their time you can then attempt to convince them that your genius projects deserve a place closer to the front of their queue of genius projects yet to be worked on rather than falling way off the end beyond all the projects they already have lined up but just don't have time to get to... (Until, maybe, a genius like you accelerates their current project's success so they can move on through the queue faster?)

I think there is an article out there somewhere though about the ability to even recognise genius devs (aka hackers), I will try to find it for you.

EDIT: Maybe it was this one: http://www.paulgraham.com/gh.html

-MarkM-

For each percent of the total coins in circulation you yourself own, what percent of all coins would you personally consider "too few actively mining" enough to cause you to fire up a "miner" yourself?

For example if you owned half the coins, and one day it came to your attention that only ten percent of all the coins were online aka actively mining, would that be a dire enough situation to lead you to put some of your own coins online so they too could "mine"?

If not, at what percent of all coins being online actively mining might you consider firing up a node yourself?

Consider two different backdrops to that:

In one, your fifty percent of all the coins adds up to a total market value of only a day or so electricity and bandwidth cost of putting a node online.

In the other, your fifty percent of all the coins adds up to a total market value equal to many years of electricity and bandwidth cost of putting a node online, plus enough to buy hardware for two to a thousand or more nodes, and all that is without spending more than half your coins.

-MarkM-

Destroying bitcoins! Awesome, I hope you destroy lots and lots and lots of them.

Unfortunately, it is not clear how you propose to destroy 420,000,000 of them ?

-MarkM-

BTER's scripts (they are used elsewhere also so this might apply to any exchange using those scripts) seem to be broken.

It will not let me cancel my highball sell orders.

The tables where it purports to be showing me my active orders only shows four of my sell orders, and those are the lowest ones, which are not the ones I want to cancel because, who knows, maybe someone might actually take me up on some of them.

But I spent a lot of tiem yesterday placing orders way way up high, step by step, and the pale blue shading on the order book that indicates prices at which at least part of the order is your own shows many of my orders must still be active, although that table too only shows some of them, maybe about halfway up through the range of orders that I placed.

Now I wanted to cancel a few of my highest sell-orders but they do not even appear on the list of active orders.

Is this just a temporary glitch or is that script "broken by design" or what?

I think the active orders list might also not be showing all of my buy orders either. It only shows four of my sell orders and the rest of what it shows are buy orders, but it is not showing many orders at all so I suspect quite likely the buy orders that it does show are only a few of what I actually placed.

-MarkM-

The coin isn't important, the technology is.

Once the technology works presumably many many coins will be able to migrate to it, such as all the coins currently using blockchains that they are unable to secure.

Maybe even also some of those that already moved away from un-secure-able blockchains to Open Transactions.

-MarkM-

I don't think it has anywhere near Open Transactions' functionality yet.

-MarkM-

Yeah very short-sighted. They'd rather burn a million-dollar bill to sell its ashes for a penny than wait for the bank to have a million dollars in stock to redeem it for.

-MarkM-

Isn't it distributed / P2P ?

-MarkM-

The most profitable alt is one that you and all these others running around looking for it have not found yet.

Once you find it oh well time to move on as it won't be profitable anymore.

Slash-and-burn agriculture turned out not to be as effective in the long run as sustainable agriculture, crop rotation, heck a lot of innovations that happened since slash and burn was the best method known.

Might be similar with cryptocoins?

-MarkM-

Thus try not to spend bitcoins on such things.

What I did was spend BBQcoins on them, since they were an almost free windfall (their difficulty was low enough for almost a whole year that they could be CPU mined so I just had a core of one of my remote servers mine them all year).

Sure I had to turn the BBQcoins into bitcoins on the way to cashing them out, but I gritted my teeth closed my eyes and pretended I was spending the BBQcoins, trying to ignore the awkward fact they were in bitcoin form momentarily in the process.

A whole heck of a lot of them got stuck as bitcoins though so I try to view it has having lucked into vast numbers of bitcoins plus also some nice rigs, instead of as having not held on to as many bitcoins as I could have.

Basically I got so many bitcoins from those BBQcoins that it seemed reasonable to diversify.

Plus those BBQcoins had taught me that it is the coins that are not on exchanges that have the largest potential for profit.

Once a coin gets onto an exchange it tends to get harder to mine it. A coin on an exchange might need all your block eruptors all pointed at it to get a few, whereas the ones not on exchanges yet each eruptor could be pointed at a different one and do well, if there were as many such coins as you have eruptors.

Part of why I bought ASICs was there was no place to buy I0Coin and GRouPcoin and CoiLedCoin and GeistGeld so I wanted to merged mine as many as possible before the masses realised they were leaving all of those out of their merge.

As it was, I0Coin got back onto mmpool and then an exchange before I had much time at all to take advantage of its low difficulty. I had hoped for many months of quietly picking it up with all those block-eruptors that I bought.

Bitparking's mmpool also picked up GRouPcoin when it picked back up I0Coin, so I also didn't get much time to pick up GRP at low difficulty with my block-eruptors. But CoiLedCoin and GeistGeld are still nicely under the radar so are coming in all day every day at a nice rate...

-MarkM-

Also, difficulty is far from out of reach of hobby miners.

Little USB munchkin miners are still making money, and could be had for only about $13 to $15 or so at one point.

It is much easier on a hobbyist budget to pick up a $13 to $15 item from time to time - or heck even pay $20 to $30 each for some a friend of a friend is phasing out as he moved on to larger rigs as a friend of a friend recently did - than to blow $150 or more at a time picking up a used GPU on Kijiji or Craigslist or whatever.

-MarkM-

http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=cpu_mining

-MarkM-

When you send coins it has to use existing outputs from existing transactions to make up the amount.

Often of course no existing outputs add up to the desired amount.

Thus it uses previous outputs that add up to more than enough, and sends "the change" to a new "change address" that it creates for the purpose of receiving your change.

I have heard that clients nowadays automatically "re-scan" the blockchain when they need to, but certainly the older code did not do that and I am nor convinced the new ones can always tell if you switched the wallet. So in the past you always had to deliberately tell it to re-scan if you switched the wallet out from under it. Such as when you import a key.

TO tell it to re-scan you start it with -rescan as one of the switches on its command-line.

(In a GUI the command-line is usually one of the "properties" of the shortcut or icon or menu-item; the command-line that it in effect types for you behind the scenes when you click that shortcut or icon or menu-item.)

I used to always have -rescan on the commandline in my "start the daemon" script just in case the reason I was having to start the thing was that a power outage or reboot had killed the one that had previously been running, possibly leaving the wallet in an inconsistent state or something. It is this usage of -rescan that I have been told is not needed in recent clients; supposedly the client or daemon should notice for itself if it is in an inconsistent state due to having crashed/died previously. Merely importing a key might not trigger a rescan, I do not know but I would think it would be awkward to automatically re-scan when someone imports a key because they might have another key and another key and another key and so on that they want to import before finally being ready to do the re-scan, and it would be very painful to have to wait for a full re-scan between each key and the next.

I have always used an external tool to import keys too, so I close down the daemon, use a tool to import a key or bunch of keys, then restart with -rescan so it will re-scan the blockchain to check for any transactions involving any keys in the wallet thus find any balance associated with the added keys.

-MarkM-

Yes I agree, bitcoin got painted into a corner by their existing marketing all over the web etc much of which could not be changed (gosh knows who made this that or the other webpage or article or press release etc, good luck getting all the newspapers to publish retractions or whatever etc etc etc) claiming transactions were free, then later that transactions could be free and even when not free were negligible cost and on and on backpedalling.

-MarkM-

For these maybe either the Mastercoin platform or the Bitshares platform might work, depending on whether either of those platforms does turn out to actually work itself.

Both platforms have among their target features the ability to attempt to "peg" a currency to something.

Thus if either works it ought to be possible to run your twelve fiat-related currencies as actually being pegged to the corresponding fiats.

Japanese Yen Coin for example makes little or no sense if in fact it is entirely unrelated to Japanese Yen.

Mastercoin and Bitshares are two different technology platforms aiming to implement such relationships.

Of the two and assuming they actually turn out to work, which remains to be seen, I tend to prefer bitshares simply because Mastercoin calls for "trusted oracles". However they also plan "contracts for difference" as an alternative approach; I am not sure yet whether their "contracts for difference" also involve oracles or whether, like certain setups of "long coins and short coins", they will operate without needing to know the "actual prices" of things or even whether markets even exist for such things.

(With "long coins and short coins" people just trade the long and short coins, the system needs no information about what prices the things being shorted or longed might or might not have out in the world, it is possible for both players to profit even since each might know of a place where they can get a good price for one of the things, so that each ends up with the thing he or she can get the best price for. There is no need for them to reveal to each other what those best prices are nor where or how one would go about getting such a price. At most you could deduce, if the players are rational, the approximate prices those specific actors "must presumably think they can get somewhere" for the thing they choose to walk away with. Like "Oh gosh he paid that much for one of those? He must know a place that pays a lot more for those than people in my neighborhood do!" kind of thing.)

-MarkM-

So far you sound too much like all the kiddies throwing out coin after coin after coin to crash and burn.

The impression I get is that you want to churn out even more crapcoins, but make them look slicker so they sucker more fools into losing their money.

Before even one coin is actually up and running and secured already you are on about more different coins.

No ASICs taped out yet to secure the first one, less than half of the hashing power still - none at all that you have mentioned, actually - and already you seem to be moving on to yet another coin.

So basically a serial scammer with a slick con-man plan to paper-over the intrinsic fundamental lack of ability to actually secure even one coin with a plan to keep churning out newer slicker scams leaving a trail of victims holding a series of pretty bags.

The entire cryptocoin community all working together is incapable of even just supporting the coins we already have, let alone securing them, yet your plan is to kick all the victims of all those ponzi schemes to the kerb and wow them with newer better ponzi schemes that will victimise more of them faster and maybe even bilk them out of more money per victim than the existing scams.

Sounds like a scammer olympics in which you aim to be the slickest scammer of all...

How about putting your skills to work doing something constructive, like rescuing some of the victims already strewn all over the landscape, putting shiny attractive skins onto something that might actually be secure and worthwhile, basically use your skills to try to ensure that the public does not get sucked in by more and more scams but instead recognises at a glance the most secure places to store their wealth and finds them more attractive than the scams constantly being spewed out?

-MarkM-