because it hasnt been proven without a reasonable doubt
No one has really broken their story or pointed out something they have not been able to explain.

Also meaning some potential attacker could choose a time with less mining going on to stage his attack (chain only as strong as weakest link as in network only as strong as it is at times with lowest hashrate). So I think I'm against a transaction-amount dependant fee.

So the incentive for someone sending money to include a high transaction fee is not "to secure the network" but to "ensure a speedy transaction". Transacters are competing for scarce space in blocks. However "block space" is not the same resource (in view of miners) as "hashing power".

So is it true that we basically have to "artificially" limit the available block size to ensure miners will receive high enough fees?

Yeah, hope you did find nobody to scam. Everything is so retarded in Cedartec's obvious scam that I really believe that nobody was so mentally challenged to actually send any money to them.

If I could afford to loose my bitcoins, I would have backed my instincts.  There is something about CedarTec, that's intriguing.

The language is pretty clear, this is only a filing and coinlab is wants to solve this. The filing is only to light a fire under mtgox and let coinlab reestablish control in the relationship. Clearly mtgox is being run by finance amateurs, Peter's press release read to me like "get your priorities in check, or deal with our wrath"... wonder what the politics behind the scenes looks like.. I think think will never go to court, and mtgox will end meet their contractual obligations ASAP.

Well the additional value from mining freicoin is pretty much gone at current prices of 0.0004 BTC/FRC.  My power is back with bitparking.

However, having those other merge mined pools setup would be cool.  Then people can pick & choose whichever primary they want. 

As for demurrage, I'm sure you can build in one year's demurrage into the PPS or DMG payout fee.  You've considered having automatic cashouts monthly/weekly.  I think for that pool, it's reasonable to say once a year/month you would auto cash people out with balances over 10 FRC or something like that.

Once my BFL gear is here, the temptation of setting up my own pool will increase; however you're still an awesome operator.  If you prefer me to focus my efforts on helping build your pool, I'm down with that. 

Not sure how much I'd be able to help just yet, but figured I'd throw it out there

GPU miners are going in altcoins where not even FPGAs really exist yet (unless BlockBurner has something to say about that ), let alone ASIC devices. Bitcoin is going pro, only those with more daring and deeper pockets can mine effectively, leaving coins like Litecoin fertile ground for all manor of lower end investors that missed the Bitcoin wave. ASIC will push GPUs out of Bitcoin, but not the rest by far. GPU mining will be fine until FPGA or ASIC is simply the starting standard for new coins.

That assumes you're not intending to diversify. I just placed a modest order for some ASIC mining hardware. My plan is as follows:

Pay for equipment at 100%. If it takes the first month to pay back my investment, or 6 months. 100% of profits go to breaking even on the equipment. After that, 50% goes into a reinvestment account, which will be used to continually upgrade and acquire more equipment (which will then be paid back at 100% of mining, etc, etc).

The other 50% gets split two ways. 25% will be held in cryptocoin. I'll devise an investment strategy that probably includes litecoin, bitcoin, and maybe a couple of other 'altcoins'.

The remaining 25% will go in my pocket to be used to "invest" as I see fit (probably paying down my mortgage, or other debt. Maybe a small amount invested in other stocks or commodities or IRA.

IMHO, throwing ALL of your profits into a volatile market (bitcoin) is too risky. But pulling it all out in cash is risky in itself, because of the risk of lost opportunity. If bitcoin doubles in value, or even increases 100 fold, my 25% investment will be a comfortable return. If it loses all value, at least I got back the cash that I did.

Diversification is your best option, in the long run, IMHO.

Yep. To be a primary coin you don't need any blockchain changes - just software to correctly manage the alt coins and store data in the coinbase of the primary chain. Tweaking namecoins merge-mine-proxy can do this.

That's cruel man.

It does with DGM. In longer rounds slightly more is paid in an attempt to offset the pain of the long round. In shorter rounds less is paid to help the pool build up a buffer. You can see this reflected in the existing payouts on that page. This is in turn affected by the variance the pool has been experiencing in that future rounds will pay more to make up for the lesser amounts paid in the unlucky rounds.

The actual effect of the adjustments is controlled by the parameters the pool operator chooses for o, f and c as described in the double geometric method post. The parameters I picked result in up to approximately 5.8 BTC extra per block payout to correct for variance/long rounds. That's why you're seeing the existing estimate increasing much more slowly around the 30BTC value.

I'm trying to understand the general consensus towards pre-mining among the alt-coin community. In particular what single, or multiple reasons are behind what you think makes pre-mining a bad concept? (if at all, in some cases I guess).

Is it due to the fact that it's usually performed in secrecy before or at the launch of a new coin?
Is it the sheer volume or amount of coins pre-mined?
Is it just so that if/when a new coin is profitable, they can be sold for a quick buck?

On the flip side, is there any instance where-by pre-mining is an acceptable practice?

It could be a combination of many things to you, of course.

Appreciate any and all answers in advance.
My curiosity thanks you.

 

The only thing i'm trying to create is an economic algorithm that has the fewest number of flaws.

If that were the case, then why was Josh so adamant in assuring that certification was in progress back in November?


Note that Josh claims that some screen was already certified, yet nowhere on the FCC site is such a device mentioned unless, of course, the FCC made a mistake and forgot to include it on their website, or it's a non-truth. The other option is that the FCC is behind in posting, not yet to the October of last year's submissions, which would be odd, for I can clearly see this past Wednesday's results.

To this day, Josh has not once addressed the FCC again after releasing his above statement.

Agreed. This shipping news seems like a deliberate cash grab.