|
I think the green theme is a winner. Not too sure on the chinese element to it but it looks very professional.
|
|
|
|
I want to thank the editors and creator of this spreadsheet !!
Also I'm begging them to convert it to CHNcoin, as this is now pretty much redundant and I'd love a chance to use this sheet for CHNcoin trading.
Feathercoin was not the death of litecoin, and CHNcoin won't be the death of Feathercoin.
No. Keep this spreadsheet as it is, it still has a purpose. Especially with Cryptonit down. Create your own spreadsheet for your coin if you want one. |
|
|
|
Hmmm. According to my calculations a decent mining rig can mine thousands of these per day at the current difficulty...
It just makes it easier for me not to sell my coins, and keep them for a rainy day  Good luck my friend. May we all become rich |
|
|
|
|
Hmmm. According to my calculations a decent mining rig can mine thousands of these per day at the current difficulty...
|
|
|
|
Just my humble opinion, but no reason to really use it anymore due to vircurex and bter.
I would just stick to Vircurex myself. |
|
|
|
|
Can't believe the growth of these feathers. On Vircurex already. Crazy.
We'll probably get 10 copycat coins trying to repeat this success in the next week but it's not gonna happen.
|
|
|
|
|
Those are some very nice features.
I've seen the name Microcash being bandied around the forum in recent weeks, am I right to assume this project is still in active development? Is it known how much of the proposed design we can expect to see in the finished product?
edit: nevermind, just noticed the other topic on the front page
|
|
|
|
|
Tulip mania if people are buying at 15LTC /1000CNC already.
|
|
|
|
And wait until that exchange become one of the major out there! I'm speculating that when some other pairs will be added, people will start to diversify their holdings into MinCoin causing the price of this rare, fast altcoin to skyrocket. The exchange doesn't even have secure socket layer. This. Secure socket layer (SSL) is what any website involving financial transactions should have as a standard. No SSL means your communication with the website when you visit each page isn't encrypted. So your password is sent is plaintext and can be viewed by a packet sniffer, for example. |
|
|
|
|
rofl. read who wrote the quote
|
|
|
|
I also haven't seen anything that is worrying in version 0.3. Would you show me precisely what is so broken in version 0.3? Same thing which was broken in 0.2: it is secure only if there is a large number of active stake coins. I already mentioned a message where doublec described how he can generate a shitload of PoS blocks in a row just by bringing his offline wallet online. Nothing have changed in new version to prevent this... OK, well, aside from change in weighting of stake, which isn't that significant. To the person who mentioned checkpointing, it is for security purposes and Sunny has said it will become advisory only by the end of the year at the latest. Why do you trust Sunny? Let's do this again: "The market cap of PPCoin is worth millions of dollars. If it was easy or trivial to attack and do double spends or whatever, why isn't it happening?  That's not a rhetorical question, I am genuinely interested in your reasoning." I'm guessing since you ignored this entirely, you've realised how foolish the entire premise of your argument sounds. In that topic you linked to, the guy is using 0.2 not 0.3 and in the 0.3 release Sunny said it contains bug fixes. I don't see any reports of this happening with 0.3, please link me to them if you do. Checkpointing is necessary for security. It's also a temporary measure being phased out. If another new cryptocurrency emerged based on original ideas that needed to be tested out in the wild it too would likely use a checkpointing system (doing otherwise would be suicide). |
|
|
|
If you truly believe the name is causing us to lose market, I'd say the evidence is to the contrary. Just one month ago we were still in a close match with devcoin, terracoin, novacoin etc. Apparently the market has decided the name was either not that bad or didn't matter and now we are #3 even ahead of namecoin.
I agree. |
|
|
|
MC2 looks amazing. But I am guessing it won't be out for like a year because it requires a lot of new coding ideas  |
|
|
|
|
According to his recent posts Perhan the topic creator recently sold all 45k of his FTC, banking on the price dropping soon. I'm sure he is unbiased with this topic though.
|
|
|
|
Creating another coin because of the name is dumb. It's also a huge discredit to the countless hours of work Sunny has put into his own project. I feel sorry for the guy because he receives such little acknowledgement for his contributions towards cryptocurrency. PPCoin is continuing to prosper though, so perhaps that is reward enough for him. If eager programmers have a hard time deriving the implementation, so do eager attackers, thus attacking will not eager to happen. What makes you think that programmers have "hard time"? Nobody really cares... Versions 0.1 and 0.2 were completely broken, there is very little interest to tear apart new version... But some people did that, and they say it is still broken... The market cap of PPCoin is worth millions of dollars. If it was easy or trivial to attack and do double spends or whatever, why isn't it happening? That's not a rhetorical question, I am genuinely interested in your reasoning. I also haven't seen anything that is worrying in version 0.3. Would you show me precisely what is so broken in version 0.3? ^ Interesting, I've been looking for a clear answer on some of these issues (and finding the 'energy-efficient' claim very...imaginative) and it seems I have found it...Thanks.
My understanding is PPCoin is only proof of work for the initial minting process. In the long run it will consume much less energy as it will use proof of stake for transactions and later minting of coins. To the person who mentioned checkpointing, it is for security purposes and Sunny has said it will become advisory only by the end of the year at the latest. Thanks for that I'd be interested in hearing replies to this. If PPC isn't 'broken' but merely untested, then I would vote simply for a name change + homepage revamp seeing as it's still very early days rather than launching a new coin with a different name. What's this I've read about the PPC code being uncommented? Does this mean it's very hard for other programmers to work on? Well, this is my opinion. 2 months ago PPCoins were selling for 2 cents a coin. Last weekend they hit 40 cents a coin. Does it seem like the name of the coin is holding it back? I would also like to see a homepage revamp. Something cleaner and more informative. I am used to the name myself. The Nintendo Wii sounds like Nintendo Piss, and sold 100 million units lol. The PPC code is apparently not easy to follow. I suspect this is partly intentional to minimise people cloning it before it becomes popular. That is pure conjecture on my part though. Perhaps it is because Sunny is operating largely alone and hasn't had time. When the price hits $1+, more developers will be attracted to working with it. |
|
|
|
Creating another coin because of the name is dumb. It's also a huge discredit to the countless hours of work Sunny has put into his own project. I feel sorry for the guy because he receives such little acknowledgement for his contributions towards cryptocurrency. PPCoin is continuing to prosper though, so perhaps that is reward enough for him. If eager programmers have a hard time deriving the implementation, so do eager attackers, thus attacking will not eager to happen. What makes you think that programmers have "hard time"? Nobody really cares... Versions 0.1 and 0.2 were completely broken, there is very little interest to tear apart new version... But some people did that, and they say it is still broken... The market cap of PPCoin is worth millions of dollars. If it was easy or trivial to attack and do double spends or whatever, why isn't it happening? That's not a rhetorical question, I am genuinely interested in your reasoning. I also haven't seen anything that is worrying in version 0.3. Would you show me precisely what is so broken in version 0.3? ^ Interesting, I've been looking for a clear answer on some of these issues (and finding the 'energy-efficient' claim very...imaginative) and it seems I have found it...Thanks.
My understanding is PPCoin is only proof of work for the initial minting process. In the long run it will consume much less energy as it will use proof of stake for transactions and later minting of coins. To the person who mentioned checkpointing, it is for security purposes and Sunny has said it will become advisory only by the end of the year at the latest. |
|
|
|
Congratulations to all the miners! A great result indeed!
Network is growing very strong indeed. |
|
|
|
|
Damn. This growth rate is unprecedented. Projected difficulty is already over 82.
Nuts.
|
|
|
|
Make an offer -
5k FTC for 5 BTC, you send first. Well you've changed your tune. I notice you've deleted a ton of your posts bashing alt coins lol. |
|
|
|
|
I don't know the exact figures but mining feathers is definitely a lot more profitable.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
