|
I think you assume that all Coins are directly tied to Bitcoin when you don't need to be. If you are pegged against a more fungible asset than Bitcoin, it invalidates your argument because the two exist as separate entities.
|
|
|
|
or just forget the adt 1 and solve this. how much is the difference? if it is less then 50 mill i can stand for it when i get my coins. just get it on!  Yeah, I agree. Not much point worrying about swapping the last few v1 stragglers, especially when v2 doesn't work. Fix v2 first, then worry about the little things like coin swapping. I really think all you need for it is a DNS seeder or two and some time locks so it doesn't Stake before it reaches the highest chain. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Its not easy. You will have to set up two transaction points spatially separated and do transaction from them quickly so that the transaction from one is not yet propagated to the nodes close by the other. As soon as the transaction gets to most nodes, they will reject any new transactions.
Its not that hard if you have time because you dont want to screw anyone. Nodes tend to remove transactions from their mempool. Not sure if there is a timeout, but nodes get restarted and rebooted all the time removing your 1st unconfirmed transactions from their memory. They will now accept your 2nd transactions and broadcast it. I had a similar "problem" where I tried to combine 4 low value inputs into a single input without paying a fee. The TX had an overall BTC value of 0.0022 and the inputs had been several hundred blocks old, but of course this was not enough to get a high enough priority. Thus I had to remove the transaction from my bitcoin core with pywallet and create a new one - a double spend - which paid a fee. The 2nd transaction propagated fast and was confirmed within the next few blocks. It is that easy with 0 confirmations and no fee, multi-bit will let you set your date back in order to have balance again. I had no real knowledge of the Blockchain when I did it, just that I needed to resend the original transaction with a higher fee so it would be included into miner's transactions before my first transaction. |
|
|
|
It is a nice observation and many people have claimed Nick to be Satoshi in past, but it will take more than a word/phrase to come to any concrete conclusion here. Not that easy. It may just intensify the already-believers. One must not assume anything without concrete evidence, this Nick Szabo is a very prominent thinker though and I enjoy reading the things he's posted about. One thing that runs though my mind from time to time is that possibly whoever created Satoshi, may have also been the creator of NXT. Maybe I am mistaken but didn't the creator of NXT also disappear into the outer reaches as well? If Satoshi was still around for some time after leaving Bitcoin, I don't think he could keep away and it could be where he's been a part of a few different Cryptocurrencies under anonymous pseudonames. |
|
|
|
I firmly believe this coin is misleading a lot of people. I am just saying MAX_MONEY is not a way to determine how many coins can be made. It is used to filter TXs and make sure you don't blast the network with really high output. static const int64 MAX_MONEY = 2000000000 * COIN;
if (txout.nValue > MAX_MONEY)
return DoS(100, error("CTransaction::CheckTransaction() : txout.nValue too high"));
What is the max market cap, then? Also, is that 2000000000 figure for paycoins, or for fractions of paycoin? There is no real maximum total supply, there isn't in any Coin. That figure is in full Coins and it's used as a mechanism to check only and has no real basis as to what the reward output will be. |
|
|
|
|
Ooohhh, LIKE!
How did I miss this? definitely following this
|
|
|
|
|
A friend of mine told me a month ago or so how he was able to drain faucets through this method. For the moment I don't think Proof of Faucet is viable as it's too easy to game. I think it would be better to just have someone doing giveaways where you can identify whether or not the receiver is part of multiple profiles and exclude them on a case to case basis.
|
|
|
|
This site seems to be managed by a try-hard. They are posting lies and then going step by step, supporting them with another lies. Want a proof? First sentence from the linked article "PayCoin (XPY) an altcoin backed by GAW miners, which is believed to be a scam," leads to another one: "Currently they are being investigated by the SEC for their questionable business model and their operations." Which is a lie. Somebody (probably the author of this "article") even made a fake screenshot of the site with scheduled GAW investigation, but there's no trace on the real site. http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin.shtmlThe question you should ask is why would anyone try to make people think they are being investigated. People hold grudges, people don't like seeing things succeed that they themselves do not agree with, people believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. People do what people do... Give it a year or so and I'm sure you will think differently. It looks like you jumped on the IPO and are defending it because you are worried now that the price has dropped about 50% Typically IPO's with a very large buy-in tend to drop in price within the first month. You need critical analysis in order to make an informed decision otherwise you are trying to base your decision on hype and what the largest holders will tell you, which will always be through rose tinted glasses. |
|
|
|
|
Happy New Year!
How is the progress coming?
|
|
|
|
|
This could only be achievable with a POS only Coin, if it were POW only (as in the case of FractalCoin), it would quickly collapse the price. If using POW/POS where Stakers claimed fees but POW destroyed fees then POW could hurt the total liquidly of the active Coins.
2% is also way too much, often you need to move around your Coins to other wallets or combine your inputs into larger Blocks and if you own a lot of Coins, that can be a large amount of fees.
Storage is the real cost of the Blockchain and it's why fees are charged as a constant per kb of data added to the Blockchain. If you step away from that and charge as a percentage of the transaction (or minimum whichever is higher), you may break the cycle of reward as a small holder may Stake the next Block and gain a massive amount of Coins in fees.
The way I could think to combat this is if you could average all the fees over a large timespan such as 1-2 weeks. Let's say the timespan is 10,000 Blocks and there is a large % transaction that includes 10,000 Coins in fees, it would then add 1 Coin to the Base Block Reward for the next 10,000 Blocks. Then in the next Block is another 10,000 Coins in fees so that adds another 1 Coin to the Base Block reward for the next 10,000 Blocks and so the base reward is now 2 Coins for the next 9,999 Blocks and 1 Coin at Block 10,000 and then this goes on and on.
The issue I've encountered here is that there is no real mechanism to average out the Fees over a large timespan, POS bases everything on the last Block seen. You also don't want the process to create transactions for the Fee rewards every Block as that would create a unbelievable amount of Bloat. You would also need to take into account the actual cost of the transaction in accounting for the Fees charged (the amount of inputs combined into the transaction).
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the first step isn't about being able to charge Fees as a percent of transaction, but being able to average out those Fees over a long period without adding a lot of extra data to the Blockchain.
|
|
|
|
|
You'd get more Yes votes if you didn't post it in the Altcoin Section lol
I rarely even hop onto the Bitcoin Section, this is where the real innovation is.
|
|
|
|
i was thinking about this but was unable to do this
i hope some expert in coding will post a solution for this
also make sure there is a minimum fees also
and as tx fee 2% or minimum is charged which of them is higher
So you want 2% to go directly into the next Block? sounds like a lucky payday for whoever mines that Block. I've looked into this quite a bit and would only really be possible if you can average out the fees over a large number of Blocks, also you need to take into account the actual cost of the transaction in terms of the amount of data it adds to the Blockchain. A Coin called FractalCoin tried to implement this but the Coin was abandoned pretty early on and so it didn't progress. |
|
|
|
|
If you are talking about 0 confirmation transactions then it's rather easy to double spend. Send a transaction with no fee, then roll back your transactions and send the same transaction with a higher fee so it gets included into the Blockchain first, rejecting the first transaction. This only applies to accepting 0 confirmation transactions though, you would need a lot of mining power to try and get transactions with one or more confirmation through.
It just so happened that my first transaction I sent with Bitcoin was with no fee and was stuck for 4-5 days trying to get into BTC-e with no confirmations and so had to do something. The first transaction was left in perpetual limbo as 0 confirmations so technically it wasn't a double spend.
|
|
|
|
|
Umm, Satoshi wouldn't be involved in a Coin called NakamotoDark and use a picture of a guy that is not the real satoshi
|
|
|
|
Your coins' gone bruh.
Sorry to the OP but I have to agree. |
|
|
|
until now this coin still exist and very very good coin,..
and never scam like your bullshit man...
This "very very good" coin is falling down hard and nobody cares anymore..Move on to next shitcoin It's an 'experiment', you see. It is not important that they ninja-ed the relaunch, edited the OP, got caught lying about fake PMs or promoted an unsustainable coin without a long term plan. The only important thing is David, Presstab and their crew makes enough for a fabulous winter holiday! Don't think the published wallet addresses are the only one they own. This has a $60k market cap atm. It's not even worth commenting on anymore tbh. GG Trolls  From a code point of view, HyperStake is really well done but not from an economic point of view. It's 750% a year so price will decline but the float is also increasing. Comparing to 2 weeks ago, the price should be about 30% less to keep the same marketcap. The difference between the marketcap between now and 2 weeks ago is about 10% less than what it was. What I worry about with something like this is continually dropping market price and then having people sell because price is going down, further dropping the price but I guess we'll see how this all plays out. |
|
|
|
Mastercoin was $52 on that chart and is now $2.65  Auroracoin has gone from $22.22 to $0.02 - 2 cents (I'm not even working that loss in % out). Luckily I bought only 0.03 worth of AC No one reads my posts? I worked it out as a 99.8% loss in value, clearly making it the WORST investment of the year. I never bought any but a friend was trying to get in on the pump and I told him it was a bad idea and he lost like 10 BTC. I considered buying but decided not to because it was about $2.50 a coin and I thought it could not get pumped up much from there. In retrospect I missed out on the chance to make some money but also missed out on the chance of losing a considerable amount of money. That was the lure of it, so many people were buying it just because it was going up so it was very inviting except when you are seeing it in action you can't determine if you just bought the top. I'm sure a bunch of people also made money off of trading it but then a lot would get too excited seeing the price going up that they don't sell in time and end up getting burned. It's poor strategy to try and catch every pump over real market fundamentals, more often than not you will end up on the losing end. |
|
|
|
|
Maybe Uncle Ben has the most appropriate quote here..
"With great power comes great responsibility"
If you have the knowledge to disrupt and destroy networks, you also have the ability to put measures in place to stop such attacks. The attack on Sony and Xbox was childish to say the least, ruining Christmas for millions of gamers. I think there's quite a few people that don't like Sony's policies on copyright infringement but we use their products every day, do we want Sony to have to delay and scrap PS4 titles because they are constantly fighting DDOS attacks? NO
The sad truth is the DDOS attacks are going to increase unless the entire internet is rewritten, they have been on a major increase over the last year. I attribute the increase in DDOS attacks to the increased interest in Cryptocurrencies, all the need for more storage and more computer power has begun to dwarf some of the major players. I bet that even a medium sized mining pool could do a significant amount of damage to a large company.
Sony, Microsoft and others should take note of this as foreshadowing of future events and start working on the tech now, involving the authorities and legal means can only stave it off for so long.
|
|
|
|
Mastercoin was $52 on that chart and is now $2.65 Auroracoin has gone from $22.22 to $0.02 - 2 cents (I'm not even working that loss in % out). Luckily I bought only 0.03 worth of AC No one reads my posts? I worked it out as a 99.8% loss in value, clearly making it the WORST investment of the year. I never bought any but a friend was trying to get in on the pump and I told him it was a bad idea and he lost like 10 BTC. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
