Hey everyone, I wanted to try something different this time for the GOOD game contest. This time the game will be League of Legends, that way participants will be advertising our coin while they are participating. I will try to get in a few kills myself if I can find some free time. Might expand to give partial rewards for assists as well, if I can find a way to check for them, as elophant.com only show kills. Enjoy!
**Official GoodCoin League of Legends Gank Contest!! (ends 7/11/2014 6:00pm GMT -08:00)**
Simply make an account to play on the Free to Play MOBA from Leagueoflegends.com, and have GoodCoin in your username somewhere! (Example: GoodCoinSeefude)
Simply post your username in this thread to be entered. In 1 month, scores will be checked through elophant.com to see how many kills you've earned, you will be paid accordingly.
Kills in normal games will earn 10 GOODs each, while kills in ranked games will earn 20 GOODs each. Advertise for GoodCoin by ganking!
All contestants will receive a prize for participating!
I am participating under the handle "GOODcoin Me" (without quotes, with space). I haven't played in a long time though, so my skills are very rusty -- that is, if I even had any in the first place. Also, re-installing and re-patching the game took over a week since the patcher would always hang if I opened any other application alongside it. Hopefully, I can get a decent number of ganks before the deadline even with no runes and masteries. |
|
|
|
|
There was no abuse on Vod's part though. The trust system is not a concrete way of identifying a scammer but merely a guide for other members to voice out issues concerning trust. You registered a new account specifically for the purpose of borrowing Bitcoins from people who neither know you nor have conversed with you before. That's a solid red flag, and it was noted. If you joined any other discussion board and your first act was to borrow money, you would be treated the same way there as you were here.
|
|
|
|
Well i just plugged some USB 333 m/hash into a usb adapter and am solomining, will it hit? Probably not but i was wondering how many others mine with their old equipment, let me know what you use and why  While solo mining Bitcoins is an attractive prospect for obvious reasons, you have to keep in mind that there has been no single legitimate claim of a solo miner using less than 500 Mhs finding a block in Bitcoin's current ASIC-driven climate. Other reasons aside, I wouldn't recommend keeping a USB ASIC solo mining for over than 5 minutes a day if you are concerned about making an ROI. Believing in luck is normal; relying on it is stupid. As for me, I solo mine other coins with a few Ghs every once in a while, but never Bitcoin. You can join a solo mining pool that will reward you a full 25 btc if your miner lucky enough to mine a block. The pool operator only keep the transaction fee. I am thinking trying out my luck there. So far 1 person has found a block .
The OP is already solo mining, so there is no reason to join a "solo mining pool" where the faucet operator takes a cut of his/her earnings for providing a service that he/she has no use for. The only advantage of such a pool is that the miner would not have to set up his/her own client, which is usually only an issue for hijack botnets and newbie miners uninterested in learning to set up their clients on their own. |
|
|
|
So is the 400 max post thing a new guideline? There is so much going on in this thread...don't really want to have to sift through all the different conversations going on...thanks guys..
Yeah I think it is new. 100 a week, and they don't carry on to the next weeks? Nope, they do not carry over. How can you say this with sutch confidence? Did you ask Stunna yourself or are you admiting this just cuz you think it? I believe he/she can address the issue with confidence because it is the only sensible interpretation of "Maximum of 100 posts per week will be counted. [sic]" If the excess posts from one week were to carry over into the next week until the next payday, then Stunna would simply say "400 posts per month" as that would easily clear any possible misinterpretations of the restriction. |
|
|
|
can we track the outputs and have the network reject them?
It's possible to rewrite the code to do just that, but that's a really bad idea. By implementing something like that, the fungibility of Bitcoin will be compromised. You can't start something like that because there will never be an end to it. Why would you even want to reject those coins anyway? What would be the point? What principle would you be defending? The whole idea seems to be driven by envy more than rationality. |
|
|
|
|
Since your original account is inextricably linked to your website, then it should be an acceptable proof for you to digitally sign a message using at least one of the addresses containing the funds of the faucets hosted on your website. If one is not enough, then you can digitally sign the same message with multiple faucet addresses. As far as I can tell, your claim is one that is very easily provable. Hopefully, Theymos would consider that option in helping you retrieve your account.
|
|
|
|
I'll provide this chump change loan. Post your address.
So what happens when you send late?
This is my bitcoin address: 1HSiQCyZFAZ9fSHBuEDtrAEpUPx1eJPdjm I will pay 5% additional per day. I am quoting both replies as a third party documentation of agreement. |
|
|
|
What do you need it for and how will you repay?
My friends will be coming to my house this Saturday, I will introduce bitcoin to them. I show them how to trade, how to deposit, how to gamble on just-dice etc. Unfortunately I don't have bitcoins until Monday or Tuesday. I will receive some bitcoins from sig campaign. I would like to offer you some helpful advice rather than an actual loan. Since your goal is merely to teach your friends about Bitcoin, then I recommend using a substitute altcoin as your teaching aid instead. Most altcoins generally function the same way as Bitcoin. Some stores and/or services also use various altcoins besides just Bitcoin. You can easily obtain hundreds to thousands of a few altcoins by simply GPU mining them for a few hours. By Saturday, you should have mined enough to teach them about Bitcoins and cryptocurrencies in general. |
|
|
|
I don't know, you might have explained this before... but WHY don't you just cashout the funds?
The OP is a typical scammee-turned-scammer. He/She joined several obviously fraudulent GPT programs thinking he/she could get rich quickly off of them. After he/she tried to withdraw his/her supposedly valid balance, he/she realized that he/she had been scammed. Not being able to accept that he/she wasted his/her time for nothing, yet still wanting to get rich without working for it, he/she decided to try to scam others using the fraudulent accounts that he/she had already spent a lot of time on. In his/her deluded mind, he/she is a genius above all others in intelligence, and that if he/she was scammed by someone less intellectually gifted than himself/herself, then he/she would surely be able to do the same to others quite easily. And thus a new scammer is born. TLDR: Some scammers are smart. This one is not. |
|
|
|
It is not necessarily bad to have a wallet full of dust transactions. If your wallet employs coin control and you have enough non-dust transactions to offset your dust transactions, then you can avoid having to pay large transaction fees (if you care about paying the minimum fee) by only sending out carefully planned transactions. However, in general, having lots of dust transactions in your wallet is indeed a significant issue, especially if you engage in a lot of microtransactions. Imagine buying something costing 0.01 BTC. Your wallet holds a total of 0.01 BTC but only in denominations of 0.0005 BTC. That means that all 20 denominations (inputs) would have to be listed as part of the current transaction, which also means that it would take up significantly more space in the blockchain than the regular transaction. I don't know how tolerant the system and the miners are regarding such transactions, but I really don't expect something like that to get accepted into the blockchain within the first day without an accompanying transaction fee. And yes, the transaction fee would be considerable relative to that total amount. Now, obviously, different scenarios would play out differently, but the general principle is the same.
I use an electrum wallet. How do I find out the denominations in my wallet? Access the Console and use the listunspent() command. That command will present you with a list of all of currently unspent outputs in your wallet. |
|
|
|
If you haven't formatted the drive there is a chance that some of the data has not been deleted and hence is recoverable. Have you tried to recover the files yet? Depending on how much you lost, you could consider sending it to a professional data recovery service (but only if your wallet has been encrypted) which would set you back quite a bit but would be worth it if you had a lot.
Even if her wallet wasn't encrypted, it would make sense to send it to a data recovery service. If anyone was to transfer the bitcoins away to a different address (i.e. a rogue employee at the data recovery company) it would be obvious from the blockchain and they could go after them legally. If a malicious entity recovers the data and gains control of the private keys in the OP's wallet, then all that entity has to do is wait until the drive is returned to the owner before emptying the wallet. Legally, the company could claim that the OP transferred it to another wallet on his/her own. The IP address of the source of a transaction can easily be masked. Even if it wasn't, the transaction itself can be made from an online wallet connected to a public Wifi or by a third party entity not directly connected to but colluding with the malicious entity. The recipient address can be generated on a permanently offline wallet. The stolen funds can be kept in cold storage for a couple of years and later washed. Since these actions can be done by practically anyone without leaving any direct proof, the OP would have to find definitive proof that the malicious entity did any of it and that he/she himself/herself didn't. Unless the aforementioned wallet held tens of thousands of USD worth of BTC, then taking legal action would not be worth it financially. Legally, the OP would be liable for fraud if the suit backfires. |
|
|
|
|
It is not necessarily bad to have a wallet full of dust transactions. If your wallet employs coin control and you have enough non-dust transactions to offset your dust transactions, then you can avoid having to pay large transaction fees (if you care about paying the minimum fee) by only sending out carefully planned transactions. However, in general, having lots of dust transactions in your wallet is indeed a significant issue, especially if you engage in a lot of microtransactions. Imagine buying something costing 0.01 BTC. Your wallet holds a total of 0.01 BTC but only in denominations of 0.0005 BTC. That means that all 20 denominations (inputs) would have to be listed as part of the current transaction, which also means that it would take up significantly more space in the blockchain than the regular transaction. I don't know how tolerant the system and the miners are regarding such transactions, but I really don't expect something like that to get accepted into the blockchain within the first day without an accompanying transaction fee. And yes, the transaction fee would be considerable relative to that total amount. Now, obviously, different scenarios would play out differently, but the general principle is the same.
|
|
|
|
|
Currently, only ASICs for SHA256 and Scrypt are officially being sold in the public markets. An SHA256 ASIC can be used to mine any SHA256-based coin, while a Scrypt ASIC can be used to mine any Scrypt-based coin. Why do you need a list?
|
|
|
|
Don't you hate it when btt says that your last post was within blahblahblah and don't let you post
Your posting delay should be less than 6 minutes at your current rank. Generally speaking, if you are posting constructively and not simply concurring with the response that you think will generate the least amount of negative feedback, then a 3-minute posting delay is long enough to ensure that your posts stem from a considerable amount of forethought, yet short enough that it would seem nonexistent to you. |
|
|
|
|
This is not a cryptocurrency. It is a virtual currency generated and distributed at the creator's whim operating within a centralized network. The standalone wallet is essentially just an interface that connects to the central network in order to access the user's account hosted on it. Pelecoin is trying to be a poor man's Paypal, and it is founded by people who want to elude accountability and responsibility. The people involved with this coin are missing the whole point of using a cryptocurrency. I do not recommend getting involved with this coin in any way whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
I still believe that PoS is not compatible with the ideologies initially promoted by Quark. However, since a lot of Quark's supporters are very outspoken regarding its implementation, please allow me to suggest a compromise between the yay and nay sides of the discussion.
As far as I can tell, there are 2 primary concerns regarding the implementation of PoS into Quark. The first concern is regarding the security it offers as opposed to PoW. A lot of people are against PoS because it supposedly exposes a coin to a 51% attack more than a pure PoW coin would. Personally, I am not convinced with the arguments presented concerning this issue, but that is irrelevant. My suggestion will assume that a PoW/PoS hybrid coin is just as secure as a pure PoW coin, regardless of what various whitepapers and documents say. If you cannot see past that issue, then you may skip the rest of this post. My idea tackles only the second concern which is that PoS would mostly benefit large stakeholders and direct most of the newly generated coins to those same people.
Currently, all PoS implementations reward stakeholders who find a block with a percentage of their stake. What I suggest we do differently would be to reward a stakeholder with only (exactly) 1 Quark. 1 Quark is the current reward for a block found via PoW, so the amount should be no major concern. Additionally, the average time time for finding PoS blocks should be at least three times faster than the average time for finding PoW blocks (i.e., increase mining target time to 90 seconds). That way, mining could still be considered a viable option to get Quarks for people without large stakes. With this proposed PoS system, the inflation rate could be maintained without completely relying on miners to secure the blockchain.
Interesting. In other words, every active(and connected to the network) wallet will be rewarded with the same amount of PoS (=1) no matter how many QRKs are in it. Is that your PoS idea? Yes. The weight of the stake would only be used to determine which wallet finds the hash of the next PoS block. The block reward itself will be fixed at 1 Quark. The increased target time for finding PoW blocks is meant to add increased protection against any possible 51% attack in case the implementation of any PoS specification causes a significant reduction in total network hashrate . Alternatively, a 2PoS-1PoW block check could be enforced within the protocol. It would offer better protection than an increased target time for finding PoW blocks, but it would also take more time and effort to properly implement. |
|
|
|
|
I still believe that PoS is not compatible with the ideologies initially promoted by Quark. However, since a lot of Quark's supporters are very outspoken regarding its implementation, please allow me to suggest a compromise between the yay and nay sides of the discussion.
As far as I can tell, there are 2 primary concerns regarding the implementation of PoS into Quark. The first concern is regarding the security it offers as opposed to PoW. A lot of people are against PoS because it supposedly exposes a coin to a 51% attack more than a pure PoW coin would. Personally, I am not convinced with the arguments presented concerning this issue, but that is irrelevant. My suggestion will assume that a PoW/PoS hybrid coin is just as secure as a pure PoW coin, regardless of what various whitepapers and documents say. If you cannot see past that issue, then you may skip the rest of this post. My idea tackles only the second concern which is that PoS would mostly benefit large stakeholders and direct most of the newly generated coins to those same people.
Currently, all PoS implementations reward stakeholders who find a block with a percentage of their stake. What I suggest we do differently would be to reward a stakeholder with only (exactly) 1 Quark. 1 Quark is the current reward for a block found via PoW, so the amount should be no major concern. Additionally, the average time time for finding PoS blocks should be at least three times faster than the average time for finding PoW blocks (i.e., increase mining target time to 90 seconds). That way, mining could still be considered a viable option to get Quarks for people without large stakes. With this proposed PoS system, the inflation rate could be maintained without completely relying on miners to secure the blockchain.
|
|
|
|
If a scammer wanna scam he will do it with bought accounts or without them, also i dont think that a hero member with green trust will sell his account and thats the only way to scam a bigger amount
You don't have to be a hero member with green trust to be trusted. I've seen people allegedly selling a Senior with green trust. They could surely use that account to play out a few decent, simultaneous cons. And that's why the feedback system shouldn't be considered definitive and used just as a guide. It's not that difficult to effectively "buy" or acquire positive trust around here. It's unlikely that the person selling the account is going to be an active and valued member of the community regardless of the feedback so if you're not familar with that user you should be cautious, and as I stated above, if you use escrow for every trade then you should be fine. I was thinking more if the bought account with trust were to act as escrow and then con. That is actually one of the more obvious reasons as to why the sale of accounts should not be allowed. Other reasons include giving the new account holder solid opportunities to con an acquaintance of the original account owner who was not informed of the sale, con lenders by flaunting the account's positive rating and past trading history, use the social influence garnered by the account over time in order to promote a scam, and so on and so forth. I have seen no other discussion board, website or service where the sale of accounts was even considered anything but wrong. I understand that it would be difficult to detect the transfer of an account from one person to another. However, if a member starts an auction thread for his/her account, I believe that swift and decisive action has to be taken against the act since the evidence is readily available and redundantly archived. |
|
|
|
|
If the community would allow me, I am willing to fork the latest stable version of Quark to Animecoin's specifications, along with a few hard-coded checkpoints. Even though my reputation is not yet firmly established in the community, I only have 1 account (this one) and is theoretically more invested in keeping my good name than a newbie account that may be one of many. I am sure that Theymos can verify that by checking my IP address. My post history may also be perused if it will help quell any fears on my integrity.
Having said that, I am not willing to take the helm as Animecoin's lead developer. While I do believe that a community takeover is required based on Ani-chan's inactivity, I am much more comfortable serving as a "spare developer" rather than as the lead one. To be perfectly honest, good time management is not one of my strong suits and that is enough of a deterrent in this case.
Anyway, if the community wants me to fork Animecoin via Quark, then I will. If I do, I will only post a download link to the Windows version of the compiled wallet and a link to a Github page containing the original Quark source, the forked Animecoin source, a separate text file listing all changes to the code, and another separate text file listing the IDE and dependencies used to compile the wallet. If someone else with a trusted reputation would like to do all of these instead, then I would prefer that since that means that I don't have to.
|
|
|
|
|
There are a few inherent problems with that distribution scheme though.
1. In such a system, completed tasks are manually checked by the entity who issued it. Therefore, a distribution method like that would require a person to verify that the tasks are completed correctly and truthfully at regular intervals 24-7. Who would want to do that? The only other alternative would be to program a bot capable of doing so, but a bot that can abuse that system would be just as likely to be created.
2. A distribution like that would make a coin extremely centralized. A central entity would obviously need to regulate the kinds of tasks submitted to the network for completion, which would mean that someone can abuse the distribution method by accepting and rejecting tasks for reasons that are not compatible with the ideologies of the coin.
3. Even if all tasks to be done were immediately accepted and verified by the network -- which shouldn't be the case in a network that is concerned with NSFW matters -- it would still be open for abuse to an entity who can flood the network with tasks which that entity can easily complete by itself. Essentially, a malicious entity would be able to feed itself easy tasks to get majority of the coins.
4. That kind of distribution method does not secure the blockchain in any way. In fact, it doesn't interact with the blockchain at all. Unless you want to bloat the blockchain with an archive of every submitted and completed task, then the blockchain will not have a way of obtaining a pseudorandom yet deterministic hash for the next block. Either PoS or a new system would have to be added, which makes the implementation of the new distribution method itself pointless.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
