...For me, the most cogent and simplest explanation for the burned asics is their wretched autotune software....
That is because you, quite literally, have no clue what you're on about.  So be so kind to enlighten me with your wisdom and, while doing that, explain why the high failure rate just started with the autotune models. In Psychology, they call it "selective perception".  |
|
|
|
...For me, the most cogent and simplest explanation for the burned asics is their wretched autotune software....
That is because you, quite literally, have no clue what you're on about. |
|
|
|
Thanks for your answer. I'm only going to counter you once here because this is the CURE thread and I'm not sure how relevant this discussion is.
I haven't experienced Counterparty being "frequently down".
It costs btc to transfer assets because Counterparty exists on top of the bitcoin blockchain. It's no different then paying a fee for a transaction with ANY coin.
If you think the exchange is slow then perhaps your not paying enough in fees to correspond with your expectations. Again, this has to do with bitcoin and the current btc mempool more so then Counterparty. If you want to make a bitcoin transaction happen faster then you add a higher fee. Likewise, you would do the same with a Counterparty transaction.
Counterparty has a decent history in terms of crypto and it works well in my opinion. If CURE were to add some sort of features on top of the Counterparty platform I would likely be even more interested in CURE.
Without a 3rd party app, you can't set the fees; Counterparty has them preset. Paying a 3rd party some value of CoinB (that they determine) to transfer CoinA from User1 to User2 is nothing like paying a portion/percentage of CoinA to transfer CoinA from User1 to User2 (you're in more of a traditional banking system with the former). In the grand scheme of things, what is the "added value" of a 3-way back-riding of Bitcoin in order for a coin to function? If CC bastardizes itself into a Counterparty asset, I'm going back to mining over folding. |
|
|
|
I'm just curious what you mean here. What safety measures would a premier hosting service have in place to help prevent failed / burnt hashboards? What kind of "failovers"?
Data-centers have large-scale surge protection and redundant power supply sources (things that are cost ineffective in a smaller environment). Boards can become damaged by brown-outs and surges that occur during standard power recovery, the protections that a data-center has nearly eliminates those issues. |
|
|
|
... vs one that does not have even a single evil bone in his entire body and not crooked in any way shape or form whats so ever.
Someone drank the Kool-Aid by the gallons |
|
|
|
...
The BTC vs ALT war never would have happened if they simply went from 1mb to 2mb blocks last July with no fuss or muss.
....
Just simply changing what is needed to change in advance of when it needs to be changed; what insanity is this?  |
|
|
|
...
My veiw on the % is that full nodes provide just as much value/security to the network as mining does, so why not split it 50/50.
Why shouldn't someone that spent 0.2 BTC to run a single executable get 1/2 of the income earned by someone that spent 12 BTC on hardware? You're really asking that question with a straight face?  Honestly, your exactly the kind of person that makes the crypto ecosystem toxic. Your blinded by your mining ideology and how much value miners bring. When infact we're merged mined and can source plenty of hash from miners that are happy to hash at 50/50 rate. I personally can't wait till we don't have to deal with miners anymore.. no more entitled moaning from the very people that dump mindlessly into the market with no regard for crown. But to your point of how much your equipment costs compared to my equipment is ridicules. For a start your 12BTC rig would return wayyy more CRW than 0.20BTC worth of a Throne would. Thinking about it, we should plan to steadily rise the amount of coinbase reward thrones get. Set target dates every 6 months or so by 5% untill we have our 3rd way. What does everyone think? Since we plan to phase out miners anyway and don't want such a dramatic switch in reward. When miners produce every block (as is the current case), then yes miners bring value. There are coins (CURE comes to mind quickly) where the wallets/nodes produce far more blocks and do lessen the value that miners bring; however, that is not the current case with Crown. The value someone like me brings is that I'm looking for a coin that makes me want to not dump it. Which is not the case with those "merged mined ... from miners that are happy to hash at 50/50 rate", and if you don't get that their mentality is just to mine and dump anything they can (to get as much BTC as they can, as quick as they can), then you are the one who is truly "the kind of person that makes the crypto ecosystem toxic". |
|
|
|
...I don't see ANY major hardware reseller wanting anything to do with FLDC as long as they continue to insist on using that garbage Counterparty junk. There's, literally, not a single sentence in this whole thread that I agree with more than that one. What is it that you don't like about Counterparty? - It's frequently down.
- It costs BTC to transfer any other coin
- It's generous to call the exchange "slow"
- ...
|
|
|
|
...I don't see ANY major hardware reseller wanting anything to do with FLDC as long as they continue to insist on using that garbage Counterparty junk. There's, literally, not a single sentence in this whole thread that I agree with more than that one. |
|
|
|
...Recent CURE price runup has been nice - but given the current profitability on ETH / ZEC / XMR / others, it needs to hit more like 9000 satoshi just to be CLOSE on profitability (counting FLDC in that) - even with 40M PPD or so having dropped out of CureCoin folding the last 2 weeks (fair sized chunk of that being me).
I think a lot of that has to do with a combination of whether you look at ROI off the front or back and if you're long or short on BTC. One thing that would, imo, have a massive impact was if either the CureCoin devs or the FoldingCoin devs worked a deal where the coins were actually spendable with a major hardware reseller. Imagine a world where you could use your CURE/FLDC to directly buy a shiny new 1080Ti, instead of just dumping it on the market.  |
|
|
|
You are free to run whatever client you wish or support a different chain. Nobody is forcing you to use Core. However, the best and most competent developers contribute and maintain code to the core client. You are free to open a Git and submit proposals if know of a beneficial feature that is not currently available.
If you do not support segwit, run versions prior to 0.13.1, that is if you run a node.
...
Yes, it is wholly true that if you want to run a Core node, you are free to not support segwit by running an older, less optimized version of Core that is worse for the network as a whole. Meanwhile in the decentralized world where Bitcoin is supposed to be run by a consensus, if the majority want x in a wallet, then Core devs should put x in the wallet. In the decentralized world where Bitcoin is supposed to be run by a consensus, one shouldn't have to make the choice between a client that is, literally, slower and one that signals something that the majority obviously don't want. "You are free to open a Git and submit proposals if know of a beneficial feature that is not currently available." Satoshi Nakamoto, himself, could write a BIP that 99% of the community wants and if the devs personally dislike the change, then it's not going into Core. |
|
|
|
...ad hominem attack...The modern colloquial would be a dirty punch or a cheap shot...Ad hominem attacks...use of the attack...ad hominem attacks...attack people...let's not make stupid attacks...Ad hominem...
Ad Hominem...Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.
Logical Form:
Person 1 is claiming Y.
Person 1 is a moron.
Therefore, Y is not true. Taking a dissenting position against an argumentum ad populum (an accepted belief that one person should be rewarded the same amount as someone that has literally invested more) is in no way an argumentum ad hominem. Since we're playing the Latin game, might I suggest you look up "reductio ad ridiculum" (you would stand a much better chance at attempting to assert that claim, but I can shoot that down too  )... |
|
|
|
...
My veiw on the % is that full nodes provide just as much value/security to the network as mining does, so why not split it 50/50.
Why shouldn't someone that spent 0.2 BTC to run a single executable get 1/2 of the income earned by someone that spent 12 BTC on hardware? You're really asking that question with a straight face? |
|
|
|
Core updates code with new releases, nodes are not required to upgrade
Q: And the version of Core that is up-to-date and allows you to not signal in favor of segwit is where?  A: Nowhere, because no such creature exists. Q: And the version of Core that is up-to-date and allows you to signal in favor of a BIP that Core devs are not in favor of is where? A: Nowhere, because no such creature exists. |
|
|
|
Hey ComputerGenie, great to hear that you guys have sorted it out with infernoman. We are looking for fairplay DEVs who would be willing to help us with Crown Revolution Massive amount of work to be done  Don't look at me, I'm far too lazy and far too bipolar to stick to timelines. |
|
|
|
1) I like that you falsely assume...
Just like you falsely assumed I was lying about the estimated HODLINGS in my BTC stash ? Yeah, fuck off already. You're likely a mEth-head... Yes, you're right, because I am, in fact, "most" people on here. ...most will doubt...
|
|
|
|
What FUD ? You've made up your mind about supporting Bitcoin Unlimited - A closed-source cryptocurrency with laughable code-quality.
You deserve to be mocked mercilessly.
1) I like that you falsely assume that because I don't support A that I must support B (ignoring the fact that I may support C, D, or E instead). 2) If miners choose to mine on Bitmain's pool (signalling their support for BU), that has nothing to do with the product this thread is about. 3) Up to this point, Core devs support what Core devs want/like/believe and the community can be damned. When Core supports BIPs that the majority of the community wants (even though Core devs personally don't like them), then you might have some valid ground to stand on throwing rocks at Bitmain because they don't support the wants of the Core devs. |
|
|
|
segwit lemmings
Ah, so you're clearly a Roger Ver felater. Got it. There's 2 types of segwit people: 1) those that think it's a good idea 2) those that belong to the cult that think it's the next Saviour. You're obviously a FUD spewing troll that belongs to the 2nd group. I'm neither a fan nor a follower of Ver, unlike you I make up my own mind. Now be a good little lemming and go spread your FUD on Redshit or Twatter... |
|
|
|
...not planning to do anything with my stash until at least 2020... So, in other words, you've lost nothing (because current value has nothing to do with the value 3 years from now), you're merely venting because you're on the bandwagon of segwit lemmings and Bitmain isn't, and you want Bitcoin to be further centralized around Core. Got it! |
|
|
|
...Really pissed off at Bitmain. Just when I think they can't get any scummier, they find a way.
And they did exactly what to you? Caused my stash to be worth a few hundred thousand less than it was a few days ago over all this Bitcoin Unlimited/Antpool bullshit. Ignoring that most will doubt you actually have over 1K BTC, sweating a 24% correction drop after a 270+% gain in the last 9 months suggests that Bitcoin (or any crypto, for that matter) might not be a good fit for you. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
