Concerning the 4 separate credits:
The block chain does not (thankfully) store information connecting multiple addresses within the same wallet. Evidentally, there were 4 separate outputs on the DOGE block chain to 4 separate addresses in your wallet -> thus 4 separate credits!
Ah, I think I get it - thanks. Just to check my understanding, am I correct in surmising that there's a bonanza of CLAMs heading out to those people who actually followed the recommendations? "as a common measure of security and privacy, it is ALWAYS recommended that users use a different receive address for each payment they receive."
If so, good for them. Cheers, Graham |
|
|
|
Looking forward to the next update.
Don't hold your breath. The 2011 foundational work was basically a preliminary exploration by researchers not entirely familiar with the methods of experimental psychology. The write-up was informal, failed to describe the method in enough detail to support independent reproduction, wasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal relevant to the domain of study and the work hasn't been pursued any further by the main researcher. I'm not sure of its pertinence to the project other than the spurious media interest it generated at the time. Cheers, Graham |
|
|
|
what about a collaborative art project in Bitcoin, wher you have to donate a certain amount for each pixel
Interestingly, when edited, that turns into something that is practically indistinguishable from an altcoin: a collaborative art project where you receive a certain amount for each contributed pixel (share)
I'm working on some in-depth support for arguing that an altcoin can reasonably (and usefully) be viewed as a form of creative expression. I've a feeling that there are some (yet to be fleshed out) parallels in Anthony Gormley's "Field" series of works, in which the public's own involvement with the creation of the pieces is something that confers value (for some arguable definition of "value"). If he chose to release an altcoin called "FieldX", would that be fundamentally different to any of the other, more tangible, works in the series? I'm just not sure whether the artist's and public's respective contributions could ever be successfully quantified, which poses a bit of a computational conundrum. Cheers, Graham |
|
|
|
Anybody had successfully received some CLAMs?
Yes. After reading through the instructions and subsequent confirmatory posts, I decided to take the direct route. I have standard linux wallets for BTC, LTC and DOGE. BTC and LTC wallets are empty, never seen any transactions so neither are due to receive CLAMs because the addresses have never been recorded in the bitcoin blockchain as part of a transaction. But all is not lost, I am a (lapsed) Shibe and my DOGE wallet address has at some time in the past been recorded in the Dogecoin blockchain as part of a transaction (when I acquired the DOGE and when I credited the tipbot's address). $ cat /etc/issue
Ubuntu 14.04 LTS \n \l
$ cd /tmp
$ git clone https://github.com/nochowderforyou/clams
$ cd clams
$ qmake-qt4 # Qt5 menubar icons and ubuntu unity don't place nice.
$ make -j4 # entry-level core i3 (Sandybridge) Acer laptop
# I ignored several compiler warnings about an unchecked
# return type, might hack up a PR later.
$ ./clam-qt -printtoconsole -debug
^C
$ cp ~/Documents/BackupWallets/dogecoin-unsecured-backup-wallet-00.dat ~/.clam/wallet.dat
$ ./clam-qt
Works for me, better than expected, I got 4 separate credits of 4.60545574 CLAM. Why 4 credits, I wonder? And it's successfully staking, a transaction just showed up in the wallet, itemised as "Mined", totalling 0.00136895. The overview states I have 13.8-odd CLAM to spend and I am staking 4.6-odd CLAM
Status: 1/unconfirmed, broadcast through 5 nodes
Date: 27/05/2014 16:55
Source: Generated
Debit: 0.00 CLAM
Net amount: -4.60545574 CLAM
Transaction ID: 1e605b6726a3682ac739dfe8f2fa96e9479b7271d2da484a40946a9dc62a2da5
Generated coins must mature 510 blocks before they can be spent.
(I shuffled the transaction hash id before posting) Congratulations on what's beginning to look like a solid implementation of a really well-considered approach. Cheers, Graham |
|
|
|
If you do want them, well.... then: Your Welcome  <justpedantic> Your -> You're </justpedantic> <actuallyimportant> You're apparently contradicting yourself ... Your instructions in the OP: 9. Run the CLAM Client with the commandline argument -salvagewallet.
... 8. Run the CLAM Client from the command line adding the -salvagewallet argument.
And from a subsequent response of yours: run the CLAM Client with --salvagewallet. The double -- is important.
</actuallyimportant> HTH. Cheers, Graham |
|
|
|
0.9.1.2 for linux released.  Hi, Just so's you know ... $ ./aacd: error while loading shared libraries: libboost_system.so.1.46.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
$ ls -l /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libboost_system.so
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 25 Jan 16 16:20 /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libboost_system.so -> libboost_system.so.1.55.0
:-( Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
fwiw, I broadly agree - with some reservations: !. There are namespace issues: - how are we going to differentiate my "MyWallet1" from your "MyWallet1"? something easier to type like "Mywaller15"
...
you can just say "Mywallet15"
2. Your quintessentially human (and, from Sod's Law, entirely predictable) error is one rather strong reason why the UI should work to help the user avoid trivial but potentially expensive mistakes - the uncompromising appearance of hash strings acts as a clear signal to the user that checking the transcription is a necessary step in a such a transaction if the latter is to have the best chance of success. I cannot think of a RL example of your "short codes" but if there is one, it could be mined for approaches to solutions. Cheers, Graham |
|
|
|
Some sections of the above web site are NSFW. Cheers, Graham |
|
|
|
Watch out what are You doing on this forum.
You too. You need to put a little more effort into developing your coin graphic. Your rip-off of FailCoin's coin image does you no favours. It reflects poorly on you, could easily be misinterpreted as carelessness or even a lack of invention and/or collegiality.  Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
I guess the private key for the address would have to be included in the package other wise the Btc would be dead and worth nothing.
Maybe you could render the work as a diptych, splitting off the quantitative BTC element into a separate piece. This piece alone, without the other piece, is worth "only" the BTC face value. But, when it is combined with the other piece of the diptych, its value is enhanced - as long as the pieces remain together, the work is complete. The insight is to sell the parts separately to different patrons and then they negotiate the respective values for the recombining of the pieces into a single diptych. It's not an original idea, it'd be riffing off've Boggs' work, rotating it into cryptocurrency space but I think it's got to be worth a go. Dunno if you've come across Boggs' work, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._S._G._BoggsSadly, there's not much of Boggs and his work on Youtube, just a couple of snippets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ5x2-VUGXIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEtKSqzpj0QI was lucky enough to catch the BBC's broadcasting of Milestone's "Money Man" video of Boggs at work, broadcast several years ago. Maybe worth asking your local library to get you a copy. http://www.milestonefilms.com/products/money-manIt great to watch the penny drop for the guy involved as he realises that the hand-drawn $100 bill that he now owns would actually be worth significantly more than its monetary face value if it was combined with the transaction receipt (owned by the other collector), a realisation classically prompted by the receipt-holding collector trying to buy the $100 bill drawing to make up the complete piece. Anyway, just a thought. Cheers, Graham |
|
|
|
yes 18071
i forgot to change the RPC port but i guess it doesn't matter that much..
Just curious, do you intend to retain any of the original memorial element of this coin? Cheers, Graham |
|
|
|
Regarding Bottlecaps ... please provide a source for your information ...
See the original 11-month-old commit: Overwhelming balance of probability: not a coingen coin. nvm, irrelevant. I misinterpreted the request. Cheers, Graham |
|
|
|
... Dobbscoin may have been spawned a coingen, but It's a Gideon built masterpiece now
Ooh, yes of course, that's a perfectly plausible path for auto-didacts repelled by the tenor of mainstream response. I hadn't really given any time to thinking through the details of what "coingen coin" might more broadly imply. Useful, thanks. Cheers, Graham |
|
|
|
... it doesn't matter which of them was the original; this thread is only about which one is dead ...
I disagree. It is important to differentiate whether the coingen coin died or the hand-crafted coin died. Regarding Bottlecaps ... please provide a source for your information ...
See the original 11-month-old commit: https://github.com/bottlecaps-foundation/bottlecaps/blob/master/src/rpcdump.cpp#L50 if (fWalletUnlockMintOnly) // ppcoin: no importprivkey in mint-only mode
throw JSONRPCError(RPC_WALLET_UNLOCK_NEEDED, "Wallet is unlocked for minting only.");
Overwhelming balance of probability: not a coingen coin. Cheers, Graham |
|
|
|
Fee-charged is fine if there's a free trial and/or a great reputation.
Thanks for an informative reply. It'd have to be a free trial, I guess. In this domain reputations can be purchased and are mostly worthless; in other domains, reputations cannot be purchased and are mostly priceless. I'm not aware of anything along the lines you describe (not that I claim any authority in the matter). As far as I know, the nearest match is altcoincalendar.info but that's a long way from your requirements because i) it's just a calendar and ii) the content is somewhat variable in terms of detail and significance - it is dependent on the API receiving genuine announcements vs joke material. And that's really where the problem lies; the information is unreliable at source, joke or otherwise. It'd be a case of garbage in, garbage out. Things may be looking up though. I've noticed an increasing number of comments recently calling/hoping for increased transparency so perhaps attitudes are starting to harden towards misinformation and deliberate disingenuity. I envisage a transparency-oriented scheme, analogous to the FOSS "Description of a Project" DOAP scheme, that publishes altcoin core metadata in a computationally-tractable format. This would at least enable you to apply your own programmatic filters or simply browse summaries of the latest announcements. We're not there yet, though. Cheers, Graham. |
|
|
|
Are there any websites or blogs out there that do a good job of scouting out new altcoins? I'm hoping someone is out there combing through these forums and picking out the interesting stuff and writing about it.
I hope you'll excuse the question but are you mainly thinking of free-to-read offerings or do you also as a matter of course consider fee-charging offerings? I'm interested in people's perceptions. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
I guess it's boo? Who would go like "Hurray this coin has no features i gotta invest all my money into it!"
You know who? Nobody...
I've found that people can have surprisingly different views of the tradeoffs involved and I'm genuinely interested in getting a better understanding of users' models, hence my asking basic questions such as "what's on your wish list?" Cheers, Graham |
|
|
|
No features
Is that "Hurrah, no features" or "Boo, no features"? I suspect the latter so ... what's on your wish list? Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
I just reviewed some of the changes to the code you made. [ ... ] - Totally f***ed up the language files. You already had "metiscoin" in there everywhere, you now reverted these back to "quark" (e.g. src/qt/locale/bitcoin_cy.ts)
[ ... ] What's your accomplishment? What's the reason for V1.3.0? What are YOUR changelog notes? It's Open Source, anyone who's so motivated can contribute fixes and issue a pull request: https://github.com/metiscoin/metiscoin/pullsOne of the changes in 1.3.0 updates the DNS seed and other IP references to reflect the new metiscoin.com domain. A checkpoint was added to the mainnet list and, for completeness, also to the testnet. A number of lingering references to quark were squashed and, in accordance with basic software theory, re-introduced in even greater quantity. As for the removal of the test suite - it's designed and configured for litecoin, so in the absence of volunteers to migrate the test code to function with metiscoin, it is essentially superfluous. The raft of other changes are to do with the re-introduction of the mining panel but at this point I may be in danger of spoiling someone's proud revelation of all the hard work that's being done behind the scenes. I'll leave it to a community member to clone the repository, edit the ChangeLog to add the above info and submit a PR. My recommendation: get a small group together, do it in concert, get familiar with the github interface, loft some of your community stuff into the repos. It's your codebase, after all. Cheers, Graham |
|
|
|
I am trying to complete the entry. Does anyone know the Difficulty Retarget time?
The usual suspects assert it as 1 block, or 90 seconds: https://github.com/chaincoin/chaincoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L1273static const int64 nTargetTimespan = 90; // 90 seconds
static const int64 nTargetSpacing = 90; // 90 seconds
static const int64 nInterval = 1; // Chaincoin: retarget every block
But ofc, only a detailed inspection of the code can give you a canonical answer. Cheers, Graham |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
