|
The custom cpuminer linked in the OP is working fine for me after compiling it on 64-bit Ubuntu.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, this was the first time I've ever used the settings menu to change the units the amounts are shown in. For that alone, I've already enjoyed this coin more than most!
+140.00 nONC
is a lot easier to read than
+.00000014 ONC
|
|
|
|
I like the DMS.mining, the value still low, I'm buying as much as possible.
I disagree, and that's what makes this fun! |
|
|
|
~ is the home directory, not the root
That should be /home/username/.digitalcoin
Yep, this. Some altcoins will use capitalization in the directory path, e.g., ~/.MemeCoin If you run the QT or daemon once it will create the relevant directory and then you can just replace the "empty" wallet.dat with the one you are copying over. The only coin I've encountered that doesn't follow this convention for the location of wallet.dat is a real oldie: fairbrix. Instead, only the configuration file (fbx.conf) goes inside ~/.fairbrix and the wallet.dat goes inside ~/.fairbrix/data. It's possible a few other ancient coins from that era also differ in their file structure. |
|
|
|
|
For future reference, you can find the P2P_PORT in the coin's source code in the protocol.h file, it's the 2nd value after GetDefaultPort.
You can find RPC_PORT in the source code in the bitcoinrpc.cpp file, look for GetArg (-rpcport, xxxx), where xxxx is the port.
I'm talking about the values you would specify in the bnetworks.py file.
|
|
|
|
|
Deprived, what incentives, if any, are structurally built into this system over the long-term to give you an incentive to maximize the capital, or at least, manage it wisely? The management fees are one-time payoffs for you. It doesn't seem like you are obligated to actually own any .SELLING or .PURCHASE, and if you (for example) personally chose to go long on .MINING alone your economic incentives might not be to maximize the capital, beyond a certain point, although I haven't really thought that through.
|
|
|
|
I believe by default bitcoind and similar wont show anything in listtransactions if the reward is 0
correct |
|
|
|
If someone else was able to grab the source code, and wants to post it, then by all means do it.
I did clone the original Icecoin source from github. I've now tarballed it from my Ubuntu VM and uploaded it here: http://www.mediafire.com/download/ww6g6m6a6auwt3c/Icecoin.tar.gzI have no intention of mining this coin, nor any so-called "re-release". But I do think the code should be available, since it WAS released and people wasted their GPU cycles on it for a while before the dev's antics started. kaint unzip >> noober here! :-) use the command on a linux machine. |
|
|
|
Here's the block reward function: int64 nSubsidy = 10 * COIN;
if (nHeight < 20)
{
nSubsidy = 50000 * COIN;
}
if (nHeight >= 20 && nHeight< 90)
{
nSubsidy = 0 * COIN;
}
return nSubsidy + nFees;
Difficulty retargets every 15 blocks, and just hit 0.25 at block 90 where "normal" rewards of 10 coins per block kick in. That will be pretty funny if someone snagged one of the first 20 blocks. |
|
|
|
If someone else was able to grab the source code, and wants to post it, then by all means do it.
I did clone the original Icecoin source from github. I've now tarballed it from my Ubuntu VM and uploaded it here: http://www.mediafire.com/download/ww6g6m6a6auwt3c/Icecoin.tar.gzI have no intention of mining this coin, nor any so-called "re-release". But I do think the code should be available, since it WAS released and people wasted their GPU cycles on it for a while before the dev's antics started. |
|
|
|
We need a page to track all the alts and how fast they failed, at least Aquaman will be successful at something then.
A simple webpage listing every altcoin in chron order, its start date, and linking its main thread here on the forum would be super useful, wouldn't it? |
|
|
|
I downloaded the source and compiled it on Ubuntu before Aquaman pulled the source from github. Looking at the source code now, I wonder if what went "wrong" is that someone successfully overwrote the early blockchain and "stole" Aquaman's intended premine. The source code clearly intended the first five blocks as the developer's premine: int64 nSubsidy = 10 * COIN;
if (nHeight < 5)
{
nSubsidy = 50000 * COIN;
}
return nSubsidy + nFees;
but failed to include any hardcoded checkpoints. Given the low initial difficulty, someone with high initial hashing power, or some lead time on getting the source code, could have mined from block zero and grabbed those first 5 blocks. |
|
|
|
Better to re-launch
Called it! |
|
|
|
|
Source code removed? Binaries removed? Egads, this probably mean only one thing.... an imminent "relaunch", like the sad Zenithcoin saga....
|
|
|
|
|
I see that TAT.VIRTUALMINE has, as of this writing, been bid up to 0.00895. For those buying such shares at a premium or clamoring for the release of more TAT.VIRTUALMINE shares on BTC-TC, I'm curious why you are avoiding buying the DMS.MINING security, which pays out as a 5Mhash/s PMB (5 times that of TAT) and at its current price of 0.03342, and is selling at ((0.03342/5)/.00895)=74% the price of TAT.VIRTUALMINE for the same dividend?
There may be reasons people prefer TAT over DMS enough to pay that much more for TAT...if so, I'd love to hear them before I invest my own capital.
|
|
|
|
Also, if I understand this security correctly:
1.) The dividends from DMS.MINING will asymptotically reach 0
2.) The dividends from DMS.SELLING will asymptotically reach 91.25% APR. (365/400)
Is this correct?
There are some unstated assumptions about future increases in mining difficulty in your projections, are there not? The dividends from each of these assets could vary greatly depending on how mining difficulty unfolds in the future. True, my assumptions were based on extrapolation of the current trend of continually increasing mining difficulty. My understanding is that in an environment of continually increasing mining difficulty, the dividends of DMS.MINING and DMS.SELLING will BOTH asymptotically approach zero. It's the rate at which they approach zero -- largely determined by the speed that mining difficulty increases -- that determines which asset gets a bigger slice of the ever-shrinking pie. But if I've understood it correctly, both assets should theoretically decrease in value each time there is a jump in difficulty, and ultimately reach zero. Of course, I could be massively confused. |
|
|
|
|
It will be interesting to see what effect the newly-launched DMS.MINING asset has on the price of TAT.VIRTUALMINE, and vice-versa, as they are similar (not identical!) assets and both offered in the BTCT.co ecosystem.
|
|
|
|
Also, if I understand this security correctly:
1.) The dividends from DMS.MINING will asymptotically reach 0
2.) The dividends from DMS.SELLING will asymptotically reach 91.25% APR. (365/400)
Is this correct?
There are some unstated assumptions about future increases in mining difficulty in your projections, are there not? The dividends from each of these assets could vary greatly depending on how mining difficulty unfolds in the future. |
|
|
|
Have you folks not heard of GitHub?
How could you expect me to know which of your multiple releases some source code I find on GitHub corresponds to? It could be this release or one of the "aborted" releases where you let people mine for a while and then attempted to declare the mined blockchain null and void. If you go to www.zenithcoin.com you will find all the links there. This 'faux' confusion stuff is getting really old. This response just alienates people like me. It was real confusion. I couldn't tell from the original post whether source code was available, which is a must for me. I was the first to point out, back in another thread, that eagleeye's fork secretly altered the hardcoded "dev" addresses, which I thought was a dick move. But since then, it seems like you've been taking a pretty heavy-handed. micromanaging approach. I find it distasteful. |
|
|
|
Have you folks not heard of GitHub?
How could you expect me to know which of your multiple releases some source code I find on GitHub corresponds to? It could be this release or one of the "aborted" releases where you let people mine for a while and then attempted to declare the mined blockchain null and void. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
