|
Man, network hash down to 2.5 kh/s. Maybe lulworm is just being quiet so he can get diff down and mine some coins himself, or maybe the windows wallet is just a lulworm?
|
|
|
|
Spoetnik can't even follow his own advice, he's got his holdings split between Maxcoin and Jackpotcoin  |
|
|
|
Did the developers give up? When you go to http://dashcoin.info/ and go to the FAQs page, its a page not found. When you go to Coingecko and you look at Developer percentage its 12% out of like a 100%. There's not really a developer, per se. It's just supposed to mirror Bytecoin's development, without the 80+% premine, which I believe it's up-to-date with. |
|
|
|
lol nice try Charles Kordek |
|
|
|
why I get 40% of rejects by amd gpu miner, it says - ....rejected (inconclusive), I do have blocks - about 29,66 per day with 13,06Mh/s WU:46.36/m
Assuming you are solo mining (your address is FhN13HJhPQVo6Pj8p7jgDVPxu1XtoaB7MG by any chance? levski1914?), that means your blocks is being orphaned because of low hashrate. The higher your hashrate the lower orphan rate when solo mining. Its better to pool mine with such low hashrate. Why would your blocks get orphaned because of low hashrate? That doesn't make any sense. Maybe if you have poor internet they would get orphaned because of propagation delay, but I don't see what low hashrate has to do with it. Also, the network hashrate is only 341 Mh/s, so he is mining with about 4% of the network hashrate, that doesn't seem very low in the scheme of things. |
|
|
|
...
Well that is quite impressive. Is there any other method of doing anonymous transactions currently? (Whether its a service on top of bitcoin or another cryptocoin which implements an anonymous feature)
Also, why is it a seperate action in the protocol and not a standard (all transactions anonymous).
Yes Monero, https://getmonero.org/home, uses ring signatures to mix with existing prior transactions on the blockchain. There is no need for a separate action for mixing (Coinjoin, or a mixing server), or to wait for a period of time until mixing is completed before sending mixed funds since mixing is built right into the Monero protocol. When one sends Monero mixing is built right into the send funds transaction. Edit: In Monero anonymity is not optional, since there is a minimum mixing level required for each transaction, currently 2 and scheduled to increase to 4. The only exceptions are certain dust clearing transactions and coinbase (generation of new coins) transactions. I don't think it's completely correct to say that anonymity is not optional for Monero, since you could publish your view key and allow anyone to audit your txs, right? |
|
|
|
|
It's not, but he didn't write the papers, afaik.
Worth a shot I guess, GingerAle, assuming the authors have any interest in it.
|
|
|
|
|
Received. Haven't tried them yet, but they look good!
|
|
|
|
It makes one wonder what PLOS does to _verify_ an author's identity. Do they only accept submissions from people who are already known... or could you fabricate a plausible name and curriculum vitae?
I'm not sure it matters though. The PLOS publications all seem to concern biology, medical science and the like. No math-y journals, at least I don't find any.
I think generally you submit from a .edu or .gov email address, or IBM.com email or whatever, and that is a decent verification that you are who you say you are and you work where you say you work. |
|
|
|
I wish more people were aware of MRL. Monero is the only coin that I'm aware of, apart from Bitcoin and Ethereum, that has people consistently performing academic-style research in the background and publishing papers of a certain level (ie not crap). People frequently underestimate the difficulty and the importance of this. Would be even more sweet if we got them peer reviewed. Yah know, its not impossible to get things published in PLOS. Afaik there are almost no scholarly publications that accept work from pseudonymous or anonymous authors. Even the blockchain journal started by Peter_R said they wouldn't accept anonymous submissions except under extraordinary circumstances I think. |
|
|
|
any news about bitcedi? it is dead?
No news is good news, amirite? |
|
|
|
I didn't actually read the article and was just kind of talking outta my ass  I actually thought Intel was already using SiGe for their chips in production now, and that for future nodes they were considering III-Vs for the n-channel and pure Ge for the p-channel. |
|
|
|
|
Cleveland Cavaliers 103 @ Golden State Warriors 107
|
|
|
|
|
Non-disclosure agreement.
|
|
|
|
I get tired to write
I have to say the prices are different
from 2 dollars to 200
Lol you are like the worst sales person ever |
|
|
|
7nm is wild, especially when we're talking the size of nm is around 8 atoms in size (based off hydrogen atom), technology continues to impress me.
This is really impressive. On these dimensions you start to get to the point where the doping of the silicon in the channel is provided by a single phosphorous atom, and the electron's wave function is delocalized over the entire device. So, not exactly quantum computing, but kind of quantum computing. |
|
|
|
How do I unlock my funds with the simple wallet? I was testing it by sending funds and at the beginning my balance was fully unlocked however after 1 tx sent the wallet locked around 90% of the funds. Thanks
Just have to wait a little bit, maybe twenty minutes I think, a few blocks maybe. |
|
|
|
|
I guess, according to the standard it still conflicts though. Anyway, hopefully MYR will switch to XMY or something else soon and it will be a moot point from myriad's perspective anyway.
|
|
|
|
Maybe look into myriadcoin or unitus. They offer merge mining on multiple algorithms, so it is somewhat similar to what you're looking for I think.
It's still direct mining. That's not what I mean. Again, I am not saying, it's a good idea, it's more a question of it being possible or not. Basically, you want to send parasitic coins from wallet A to wallet B. To do so, you send a micro transaction in another blockchain, let's say Litecoin, to yourself, signing it with the transaction details of the parasitic coin. This within itself doesn't have any advantages over simply using litecoin in this case, but if you would use not only one, but more blockchains with relatively fast blocktimes, you could get multiple confirmations almost simultaneously. Additionally, you wouldn't be dependend on a single blockchain. If it stalls, you just switch to another one. This sounds kind of like counterparty running on multiple blockchains, which I think would be probably be possible. It was also implemented on dogecoin as dogeparty, which is kind of dying I think, but would probably be pretty easy to at least extend to litecoin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
