Do we have anyone in Japan who knows about this even? Also wont it drive the price down when people have to buy GMC to get in game then cash it out for BTC?
Will there be an option to play free an win GMC some how in any games?
Why would people want to PAY money to play games? If youre a constant loser you will go broke and if youre poor maybe you cant play GMC!?
What do you mean cash it out for BTC? I mean when they dump there GMC on exchanges for BTC when they want to collect winnings. What will drive people to want to play these types of games? Especially when it costs money... Will there be a min buy in fee for each game or can players wager whatever they like? these details are still unclear. Normally people spend money in games on power ups or cosmetic improvements. Things like that are generally the best way to monetize free games. Not sure of any of the details for how Turbocharged is going to work though. |
|
|
|
Do we have anyone in Japan who knows about this even? Also wont it drive the price down when people have to buy GMC to get in game then cash it out for BTC?
Will there be an option to play free an win GMC some how in any games?
Why would people want to PAY money to play games? If youre a constant loser you will go broke and if youre poor maybe you cant play GMC!?
What do you mean cash it out for BTC? |
|
|
|
Good grief, actual genuine C. Don't see much of that these days (I learnt C initially, still keep trying to do C-like things in C++ and confusing everyone who learnt C++ first) Yeah, James is kind of odd in that way. He only codes in C. And mostly for himself since he works on all of the core code for every project alone and leaves GUI and such to other people, comments aren't particularly common. But it terms of raw output he's unlikely anyone or anything I've ever seen before. |
|
|
|
Hi, i'm used to periodic news updates with this project but the recent drought of news as been quite long,
Seems slack is the place to be now but I don't have time to go in there, I'm sure others are the same too.
can someone share some info from slack please?
Log into your slack account save password keep the slack address in your favorites you'll get instant updates and can ask questions whenever you want Or you could check it here, many updates daily: https://forum.thesupernet.org/index.php?board=46.0Not so much happening in those specialized venues, you are not missing out on much. A great deal of talk about " the tech " and how great it is gonna be .... Go to channels #testing-windowsdev, #testing-instantdex, and #testing-instantdexgui on slack if you want to assist in testing to move things along. |
|
|
|
These are not addressing the block size scaling constraint. They are just referring to how fast nodes can verify transaction signatures. The former is the bandwidth elephant in the room and can't be scaled with existing consensus technology unless the mining is centralized on fiber connected servers.
In fairness there are many fiber connected homes now. Not everyone and not everywhere but it's become fairly common. I can't even get reliable 3 Mbps download with 512 Kbps upload where I am. Many users will be on wireless devices. Yes I as I said it isn't everywhere, but you don't need everywhere either, just "enough" places. I'd add that I've had 100-ish megabit wireless for quite a while too (and I sometimes use a location in a G7 country that just got upgraded to the ultra-speedy 3mb/384mb after many years stuck at 1.5/128!). I don't disagree that massive blocks or fast blocks are problematic with a Bitcoin-style chain (nor that being functional over ham radio, mesh networks, etc. would be preferable) but I'm not sure that "increasing" centralization is inevitable with simple scaling either. It is a race between capacity and available connectivity. Six years ago when Bitcoin started the availability of even 10 megabit connections was far narrower. Gavin may be wrong overall but there is some merit in his approach too. I was traveling around and noticed that both Laos and Cambodia had 4G already. And this was not even that recently. There's a lot of money in the mobile market so I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the world was up to that standard soon. I'm guessing AM is on an island which explains the poor internet. |
|
|
|
vanilla coin is an obvious winner cause it's now less than 1m marketcap and is the only coin to instantly and safely send...
Are you basing this opinion off taking the word of John Connor for the absolute truth, or have you formed his opinion by taking consideration of multiple technically literate people who've independently verified John's claims? If so, feel free to post links to any positive reviews of the technology that we might have missed. Because other than you promoting VNC here the last week or so we're coming up empty handed thus far for people convinced that VNC's tech actually offers a novel solution to any problems. White paper has been posted, open source, the coins sends, no one was able to double spend it. I'll turn the question around to you, why do you think it's a scam? It's POW, anyone can mine it, it's open source. What exactly do you think John Conner gets out of this? Scams usually are POS...or major premine....this coin has none of those. If you can answer with an intelligent response why someone would waste a year of there life coding, making threads, Twitter etc etc for a POW coin that isn't premined I will willingly say this is a scam. So far almost zero reason to think it is. I believe that John Connor believes that he's solved the problem of having to wait for confirmations. But he also appears to have a personality disorder, and he's demonstrated his lack of willing to listen to criticism from top people in crypto like gmaxwell. So until there's some sort of positive evaluation of the tech behind VNC by third parties I don't see any reason to remain anything other than skeptical. Peter Todd in the past has offered a largely reduced rate (like 80+% off his regular hourly rate) for consulting for open source projects. I'd recommend you or others involved in VNC contact him and see if he'd be interested in doing a review. |
|
|
|
vanilla coin is an obvious winner cause it's now less than 1m marketcap and is the only coin to instantly and safely send...
Are you basing this opinion off taking the word of John Connor for the absolute truth, or have you formed his opinion by taking consideration of multiple technically literate people who've independently verified John's claims? If so, feel free to post links to any positive reviews of the technology that we might have missed. Because other than you promoting VNC here the last week or so we're coming up empty handed thus far for people convinced that VNC's tech actually offers a novel solution to any problems. |
|
|
|
Indeed, from what information I been able to dig up, this claimed 100k tps was in a closed and controlled test environment, with a specifically constructed ledger, local LAN and almost certainly some very high powered hardware. Kinda like when you buy a new car and the manufacturer states a 0-60 time of 6s, yet try as you might you cant get it below 7! That's because it was controlled, super grippy tyres on a super grippy test track, a drop of fuel in the tank, spare wheel out, seats out, starved driver that weighs only 6st  Whoever you are, you seem to be an expert in these matters. Aside from the stolen code, lying dev, and other FUD (well deserved) surrounding Vanillacoin, what is your opinion of their claimed zerotime protocol? They say it let's you confirm transactions in less than a second and respend them as well. It also is supposedly very scalable. I've heard it described as everything from hogwash to interesting. I'll be following you as we go forward; looking forward to what you have to release. He's the lead developer of eMunie, which is a long term project with actually built from scratch code and new ideas, unlike Vanilla's fake claims of new code. Check out the links in his sig if you're curious. |
|
|
|
Bitshares is a vertical scale and it'll never be able to process 100,000 tx/s on commodity hardware let alone expensive server boxes. Even the very fastest CPUs at the moment will struggle to validate 30,000+ signatures per second and that is before doing anything else with regard to transactions like verifying outputs, read/writes to the DB etc...
I haven't seen any evidence of stress testing that proves BitShares's claim or the claims of any other crypto, and until we do, it should be taken as false advertising.
Yes, it's worrying that they seem to be promising something that for it to be accurate would probably break the laws of physics(1 second block times?). This isn't the first I've had issues with Bitshares marketing and claims. I think it's very much a legit project, but they go about it in a way that often reflects poorly on themselves. |
|
|
|
Coin gets a ton of FUD and lies and then those same people go about making a clone.....seen that before....usually it is the best advertising a coin can get that's it's something great. Did you ever see a clone more successful than the original? Where is NEM these days. Lol.
Yes, the Monero example I used was a good one. Even if lately the Bytecoin scammers have manipulated their market cap up higher for some short period of time, it's all bullshit. Also, Litecoin was a clone of Tenebrix and I don't think many people have even heard of Tenebrix today.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. All these fudders missed VNL boat and waiting for a fresh one and they honestly wouldn't care about "Dishonest" past of code they will hype, after a rehash of the old arguments.
Truely hilarious that these same people who said the code is ripped off, doesn't work and won't stop Sybil attacks are NOW suggesting cloning.......YOU JUST CANT MAKE IT UP. No. You two shouldn't try to twist my words. Personally I still wouldn't touch a VNC clone, as I haven't seen any evidence that it offers what it claims to, and refactored Bitcoin Core code is only going to be a disadvantage most likely. And if I did think that there was something there, I wouldn't be here posting about why people would be better off cloning it, rather I'd be putting together a team myself, and I'm certainly not doing that nor do I have the slightest desire to do so. It was just some friendly advice for anyone who believes that there is value there to be had in the technology itself. Like I said, I highly doubt there is based on the unanimous derision from respected technical people in the community and I've yet to see anyone with any sort of positive reputation in the cryptocurrency scene come out with a positive outlook on what VNC offers. Feel free to get some reviews done by respected people and post them here, as I would be glad to read some more opinions. Also, resorting to the term 'FUD', or calling anyone who doesn't agree 'fudders' often signals something with little substance in the crypto world. It's commonly used in altcoin communities that are desperate for a way to brush away criticism without taking an objective view of the situation. |
|
|
|
The coin sounds cool and all but John is going to destroy it if he keeps alienating people with his attitudes and methods.
Fake whitepaper.
Fake code.
Fake investors.
The tech and coding is great I'll give him that but his methods are troubling.
If this is actually true in regards to vanilla coin than i do not see any way how this coin could be successful. People are already super wary about new coins, and acts like this will undoubtedly turn the masses away. Yep, all the threads on VNC here lately have really dug a very deep hole for that coin which will be difficult to recover from imo. In 2015 most people here have seen it all before and have very little tolerance for any sort of dishonesty on the part of the developer. My honest advice for OP and anyone else who is really convinced that the tech behind VNC is legit and ZT immune to sybil attacks is that they should get a group together, sell their VNC now, and use the proceeds from that to hire a new developer or two and fork VNC and go forward with a clean start. That seems like the most economically rational thing to do from where I'm sitting. Although in my experience in the altcoin scene people tend to put their emotional attachments ahead of their rationality, so I'm not going to be surprised if no one does that. Even with the skepticism around VNC now, I think a fair and transparent launch now with the VNC code base would probably attract a lot of people just because it would be something new. |
|
|
|
Even if the ZeroTime implementation hadn't been REKT by mathematicians and computer scientists left and right, AND it was working... we would need a fair relaunch of a ZeroTime blockchain (NOT VanillaCoin) because of all the lies and dishonesty surrounding it and it's creation.
Ding ding ding winner. Even though all signs point to smoke and mirrors, if there actually was any real value in the tech behind them no one would want to seriously involve themselves in a project with that guy as the lead dev. It would be a clear relaunch situation, similar to the Bytecoin scam and how Monero took the technology away from them and ran with it. (I don't own any XMR but it's a clear parallel) |
|
|
|
Wow. Just wow. The reg flags never stop with this project, do they? |
|
|
|
Furthermore how much in the way of resources are we really supposed to believe that Poloniex put into this code review? This little exchange actually studied the entire thing, employed mathematicians, programmers, and cryptographers to determine that double spends couldn't happen and 1 confirms are safe? And did all that in almost no time at all! I find that extremely preposterous.
I think they did that on pure trust, as the relevant (1-confirmation) code wasn't even in the open at the time. That being said, I think the VNL solution is pretty damn interesting. In my experience that would be uncharacteristic of Poloniex. But I could see them doing that if they felt the risk/reward was right and that the coin itself wasn't a pure scam. Like they knew that they'd have a good chance of making enough money through the decent volume that's been had by VNC, so that any risk of loss should be covered more or less. Maybe they were also offered some insurance against being double spent by VNC people too. |
|
|
|
@BTCDDev @Este Nuno @barbierir
Yeah, yeah I hear all the time from the Supernet crew to check the source on Github. Actually, being probably three times longer in software than James I do understand where the fucking Github is and how to check it out without pushing that repo link into my face all the time. I am sure it is a news to the James support brigade, but apart from James others understand as well where to find the source code.
Anyway, from the moment he started to commit and based on what I could see in the repository from him I always said that James is a super talented guy, mainly terms of the amount of code he can deliver in a short period of time. The amount of work he can deliver is quite exceptional and indicates a special talent.
However, the issues you have just pointed out about the testing verifies (again) that I was always right about him,and that he is a charlatan and became a vaporware asset wizard with his money grabbing scam assets.
Here is a person James, so visionary that according to the cheerleaders he can transfer digital currencies into sliced breads, but
a) he prefer to to collect first 2 million US$ before he delivers anything, but he promise in the first quarter of 2015 Supernet will be done
b) your software genius star promised the first phase of development will be completed by February for Supernet and attached coins like Vericoin - of course he couldn't deliver (charlatan). When you delay 6 months on a project in which you collected 2 million US$ then you have a vaporware. In the meantime he is rolling out the scam assets (wizard)
b) more importantly, this genius fail to understand what we could rightly expect from a junior software engineer and junior project manager combo on a US$ 5K software development task that the software indeed must be tested and such software engineering task indeed requires some planning, which obviously he didn't do. That indicates how serious he is about the Internet of crypto vision and how capable he is to pull that out (charlatan). He is managing a multi million dollar software project, because he talked to crew into that "investment" in his project, he has obligation to deliver, but he just realised, oopppps, I need to test the software and I need help. The greatest organizer visionary of crypto who brought hundreds of developers to his project, did not think about testing which is as you said "not that easy". Come on guys, this is bollocks just like collecting 2 million US$ for that shit and selling his meaningless scammy assets.
I like and respect James in many ways because he is talented and smart, but I am telling you his money grabbing charlatanism will bring lots of trouble and disappointments to NXT which is - mainly due to the large support base - a quite special project.
You really seem to jump to a lot of conclusions without having any of the actual facts to base them on. First of all, you keep saying that he collected 2 million dollars. If you're trying to imply that he himself has somehow pocketed all the money that people have invested in to SuperNET then that's not accurate at all. The money is part of the SuperNET asset. People on here are so used to scam devs raising big IPOs and walking away that lots of people here tend to assume that SuperNET also must be the same sort of project, when it's not at all. Second, MGW was already more or less delivered back then anyway, at least the BTC mgw was working if I remember correctly. That was probably the first element of SuperNET that got the attention it needed to be finalized. And I highly doubt James claimed that he would complete every element of SuperNET by February considering it's a constantly evolving project that's meant to be built on over time not just by James, but by all developers working on the project. That being said, you can see here that there were no less than 4 different versions of the SuperNET GUI released during February: Three versions in February of the older first client which actually appears to have started being released in November: https://nxtforum.org/lite-multigateway-releases/ Then February is also when the first release of the next generation of clients started as well: https://forum.thesupernet.org/index.php?board=38.0And now work is beginning from the CPMT on a new client with a completely revamped UX which should be really interesting to see. And yeah this comment from you is a really accurate description of the situation /s : but he just realised, oopppps, I need to test the software and I need help. The greatest organizer visionary of crypto who brought hundreds of developers to his project, did not think about testing which is as you said "not that easy"
There has been a team of testers testing InstantDEX from the start, but bugs weren't being found fast enough so it was decided to expand the testing effort by hiring a dedicated full time tester to work with James as well as expanding the overall amount of testers. I'm not sure how you're turning this around in your mind to reflect negatively on James. But if you are then you should probably understand that James never claimed to be "the greatest organizer visionary of crypto" as you put it. All he has ever claimed to do is produce the code for his projects, and it's 100% up to other people in the project to do organize, create GUIs, coordinate and do everything else that's necessary as James makes it explicitly clear that coding is all he focuses on. |
|
|
|
dat dumps on polo when one guy can dump that much and is fucking the market, NXT probably deserve to die  If cryptos deserved to die because of one large holder to decides to sell then they'd all deserve to die. Even Bitcoin. Remember the 'bearwhale' not too long ago? The price drop comes more from the fact that this particular person has an odd way of selling their NXT. They let everyone know in advance and try to get a good price for it, but then they get impatient and start dumping. The fact that the person telegraphs their sale makes other people decide to sell because they know they'll be able to buy back cheaper when it bottoms out. It's a cliche, but the person selling off this NXT is actually a good thing as it just improves distribution. If peoples main issue over the years with NXT has been their fear of a poor distribution because of the way it was launched(which was fair, but 'only' 73 people sent in BTC), then by now they should be happy because there's been a lot of selling and a lot of distribution over what's soon to be the last two years. |
|
|
|
I have been very critical of NXT. It hasn't started as a scam, the founders and early stage investors were at the right time and the right place, and after all the source and tech has been released and - due to its large supporter base- it is a very promising project. My criticism mainly for the last 1 year, when the technology charlatan jl777, James, the simple C programmer and vaporware asset wizard basically took over the NXT landscape and dominates it with his Supernet nonsense. NXT could be a fantastic project with its large supporter and fan base, and in my opinion it would be a lot better without Supernet.
I think you're quite mistaken about James. In fact you should come help test InstantDEX on the SuperNET slack if you want to see this so called vapourware. The MGW is finished, the SuperNET GUI itself is in the process of getting its second major version done which should wrap it up in a more user friendly package. You can see some of the work flow here too: https://phabricator.supernet.org/ James' has done a ridiculous amount of development over the last year and the bigger issue is not having enough people to test. He just had to hire a full time tester to work with him and I've been trying to help get more people testing but it's not that easy. There are rewards for bug finding too. I see a few people on here mention that jl777 is all vapourware but anyone can easily verify for themselves that this is absolutely not the case whatsoever by either testing out the software itself or looking at github. Also, NXT itself has it's own entirely separate team of developers constantly putting out major releases with new features. Even if SuperNET didn't exist NXT would still be in good shape. I can't imagine any scenario where SuperNET would actually be a hindrance to NXT. |
|
|
|
I see there that the bounty is now off the table for breaking zerotime. Any particular reason why? Not planning on attempting it myself, but I would be interested in reading reports from people who try it. |
|
|
|
i like nxt...it seems technically impressive.
the uh....slightly dogey circumstances of release were an issue
....i feel you should hold some nxt.
i like peercoin, the best of alts....i think.
In what way do you consider the release to be slightly dodgy? If anything it's one of the fairest PoS releases in the post-PPCoin/Peercoin era. From what I understand it was 2 months, publicly announced, full disclosure, open to everyone ect. What else could you want? The initial distribution was one of the worst possible, but at this point it is irrelevant. As it turns out having most coins in the hands of a few made the high price possible. I am surprised to see it going nowhere looking from the outside, I think the main issue is that you have a closed group who backslap each other creating an echo chamber. This issue affects Bitshares too and I hope to avoid it. Between the constant stream of NXT development releases adding major features and then all the SuperNET development which also directly affects NXT I think it's definitely going somewhere. If we're talking price specifically, then yes both Bitshares and NXT have been hit especially hard from the long term overall crypto bear market. This specific thread though is only around because one person decided to sell a large amount of NXT. It's an overreaction and the reality is that NXT and related projects are running at full throttle based on all evidence that I've seen. |
|
|
|
i like nxt...it seems technically impressive.
the uh....slightly dogey circumstances of release were an issue
....i feel you should hold some nxt.
i like peercoin, the best of alts....i think.
In what way do you consider the release to be slightly dodgy? If anything it's one of the fairest PoS releases in the post-PPCoin/Peercoin era. From what I understand it was 2 months, publicly announced, full disclosure, open to everyone ect. What else could you want? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
